Education is forced creativity, and creativity cannot be forced, this is a paradox

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, you might be getting a skewed perspective from psych and neuro professors who probably more aware of controversies in test construction and operationalization.

maybe, though, I took nearly as many sociology/anthropology courses in my undergrad as I did psych/neuro (I had the prerequisites to get a minor in middle east studies), so I am certainly aware of how testing and grading is done in those courses.

A huge issue in most cases is labor. In highschool and low level university/college courses, the work load that asking students to write papers or do more challenging things other than multiple choice produces is insurmountable. I taught a section of into-psych that had 300 students in it. That was one of 12 sections. To test the students on issues of grand comprehension or cognitive maturity with the material would have taken an army of markers that the university wouldn't pay for, and probably wouldn't be available there if they would.

Additionally, and I could rant on this, there is a lowering standard for students (almost ever prof I have talked to has mentioned this) and the business-ification of universities has made core courses much more about giving the students the credits, thus taking more of their money and getting them degrees, than about making sure they have an actual comprehension of the material. For instance, in the intro-stats courses I was teaching this past year, the assignments were designed such that students could only lose a certain number of marks per question, and in many cases even if an assignment was left blank a student wouldn't lose enough marks to fail. This is because intro-stats is a core course for a psych degree, and thus designed by a committee of individuals whose primary concern is, "how can the most number of students pass so we can keep taking their money?"

Originally posted by Dolos
That could be a fatal mistake in educating an individual...

hardly

in my experience, high grades are a sign of neuroses and a lack of social/emotional development. All of it is anecdotal, but I've never met someone who gets good marks that is as well adjusted and mature as those who couldn't give a shit.

That being said, those neurotics get to go on to PhD, I get to find another job.

Originally posted by Oliver North
maybe, though, I took nearly as many sociology/anthropology courses in my undergrad as I did psych/neuro (I had the prerequisites to get a minor in middle east studies), so I am certainly aware of how testing and grading is done in those courses.

A huge issue in most cases is labor. In highschool and low level university/college courses, the work load that asking students to write papers or do more challenging things other than multiple choice produces is insurmountable. I taught a section of into-psych that had 300 students in it. That was one of 12 sections. To test the students on issues of grand comprehension or cognitive maturity with the material would have taken an army of markers that the university wouldn't pay for, and probably wouldn't be available there if they would.

Additionally, and I could rant on this, there is a lowering standard for students (almost ever prof I have talked to has mentioned this) and the business-ification of universities has made core courses much more about giving the students the credits, thus taking more of their money and getting them degrees, than about making sure they have an actual comprehension of the material. For instance, in the intro-stats courses I was teaching this past year, the assignments were designed such that students could only lose a certain number of marks per question, and in many cases even if an assignment was left blank a student wouldn't lose enough marks to fail. This is because intro-stats is a core course for a psych degree, and thus designed by a committee of individuals whose primary concern is, "how can the most number of students pass so we can keep taking their money?"

They're lowering their standards for me!

Bollocks!!! 😠

yup

Originally posted by Oliver North
hardly

in my experience, high grades are a sign of neuroses and a lack of social/emotional development. All of it is anecdotal, but I've never met someone who gets good marks that is as well adjusted and mature as those who couldn't give a shit.

That being said, those neurotics get to go on to PhD, I get to find another job.

Everyone is neurotic, or very capable of neurosis. It's to what level.

That adds to what I've been saying all along though, that grandiose ultimatum is very neurotic...to them (or us I should say) these types of things are a challenge to be conquered.

I'm not well, I have anxiety problems, sometimes when I dose off I go into a state of panic, the world is too much. Too much going on, too far a depth and too broad a scope. I can't handle how much I'm allowed to fathom.

Define creativity for me, without copying it from a dictionary.

Originally posted by Dolos
You understand the problem, and that's you're able to solve it. That how you know what to do in addition, multiplication, division, you understand what those signs mean. It's beyond random numbers, your performing a task. You must create and idea reflecting the problem in your head, before an accurate solution can be created.

Understanding isn't creativity, its understanding.
Many tasks can be completed with neither creativity nor understanding.

Originally posted by Dolos
I think creativity is an integral part of all cognitive tasks a fundamental level.

Memory is not a creative act (its partly constructive but that's not really the same thing.

Originally posted by Dolos
Well it's seems like that is an inter-personal related motive, like my competitiveness - ulterior yet useful, for tackling the issue of creating without particular interest, that 'metagame' is your intrinsic interest.

A metagame isn't a motive, its a consequence of competition within a sufficiently complex environment. School metagames are between the school and the students not between students. The school wants to weed out students who don't understand. All students want to get good grades.

The typical school metagame is degenerate, on the balance students will always win, because the school's only mode of assessment is very limited and does not check for many alternative reasons for the grade.

Students are trained to do well at this metagame. Maybe you've heard these guidelines before: Narrow down answers and guess. Make your essays as long as possible. Human constructed multiple choice tests are biased toward "C". Estimate and check.

Teacher have a pretty limited toolbox but they play the metagame too. Some literature teachers write tests using only information that isn't on sparknotes. Some teachers use a computer to pick where to put answers. Many teachers play by mixing question types on tests to trip up students who train for multiple choice.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Memory is......partly constructive.....

Exactly. I apologize for scrambling what you were saying outside of its context.

However, I'm really just trying to explain my perspective in saying that, "look more crucially", you're recreating the idea of addition in your head.

A metagame isn't a motive, its a consequence of competition within a sufficiently complex environment. School metagames are between the school and the students not between students. The school wants to weed out students who don't understand. All students want to get good grades.

The typical school metagame is degenerate, on the balance students will always win, because the school's only mode of assessment is very limited and does not check for many alternative reasons for the grade.

Students are trained to do well at this metagame. Maybe you've heard these guidelines before: Narrow down answers and guess. Make your essays as long as possible. Human constructed multiple choice tests are biased toward "C". Estimate and check.

Teacher have a pretty limited toolbox but they play the metagame too. Some literature teachers write tests using only information that isn't on sparknotes. Some teachers use a computer to pick where to put answers. Many teachers play by mixing question types on tests to trip up students who train for multiple choice.

Yes, I understand the concept of metagames. What I was indicating was that sense of 'conformed contentedness' you brought up. When that's taken to personally uncompromising extents, you're no longer caring about the subject itself, but conquering said subject to prove your wits. If necessary, through guile and trickery. A real Sith Academy.

Originally posted by Dolos
Exactly. I apologize for scrambling what you were saying outside of its context.

The constructive nature of memory has nothing to do with creativity. Intent is a pretty crucial aspect of creativity.

Originally posted by Dolos
However, I'm really just trying to explain my perspective in saying that, "look more crucially", you're recreating the idea of addition in your head.

My point is that with a slide rule or a mathematical table you can do math without ever learning math, only the mechanical operations that result in you getting an answer your teacher says is correct.

Originally posted by Dolos
Yes, I understand the concept of metagames. What I was indicating was that sense of 'conformed contentedness' you brought up. When that's taken to personally uncompromising extents, you're no longer caring about the subject itself, but conquering said subject to prove your wits. If necessary, through guile and trickery. A real Sith Academy.

I never mentioned conformed contentedness.

It does require creativity if you think about it, just on a very minuscule level.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The idea that it is "intrinsic" interest that matters is seriously flawed. I've taken plenty of classes where the teacher managed to make me interested in content I don't much care about.

You're compromising your interests out of necessity, if only to a small degree.

This thread is definitely off the mark about education in general being forced creativity, but as others have already pointed this out I'll leave it alone.

As to some of the spawned-off discussions, even in my Engineering classes the amount of information gets to the point that it more or less becomes piecemeal learning for the upcoming test to prove you can comprehend the material, then dump the higher details so that you'll be ready to move on. Most students take the line of thinking that manuals and computers will handle all the heavy lifting down the road, so capability is enough.

As to another point made, the only people I know who continue to excel at every academic level do so at the cost of social engagements as already noted. Those who are still overachieving at higher level classes tend to have nothing on their plate other than school for the most part. Anyway, I'm on an inane tear here, so I'm outtie.

Originally posted by Oliver North
YouTube video

education has never been about creativity

+1. Creativity comes from experience, you can gain experience through education.

We don't need no education.

Is it though....really?

You're being forced to create things you have no desire to create. Like a construction worker helps to build a building. He has no use for that particular building, he has no desire for it. We are slaves in every facet of society save hooking up with a member of the opposite sex (which in itself enslaves two individuals [if the law of attraction proves successful]) and recreating, but in those instances we're slaves to desire, desire is not the same as money or a diploma or a degree. We allowed ourselves to desire those things because we've been tricked into thinking we need them to get what we desire. And we will need them so long as we believe what others want us to believe.

Anyone can who can make a choice can have as much money and degrees as he wants, a trillion, a googolplexplex of scholarly degrees, graham's number of $s, doesn't matter.

Unless you're being educated in a field that is based around cultivating or inspiring creativity then generally speaking i don't see how education has anything to do with creativity. That isn't to say that education doesn't inspire or strengthen ones creativity even if the fields of study are unrelated.

To argue the title of the thread further i would also like to point out that creativity can in fact be forced just as education can be forced.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Unless you're being educated in a field that is based around cultivating or inspiring creativity then generally speaking i don't see how education has anything to do with creativity. That isn't to say that education doesn't inspire or strengthen ones creativity even if the fields of study are unrelated.

To argue the title of the thread further i would also like to point out that creativity can in fact be forced just as education can be forced.

It's mind domination. You accept the lie that things the way they are, that what you experience, good or bad, is really happening, when you shouldn't.

The only things that should happen, are the things that you desire to happen.

Originally posted by Dolos
Yes but the way operates in reality, is designed for shaping individuals to conform to planned skills and creative proclivities. Not all of them are good. Who plans these? That's the question you should ask.

It's mind domination. You accept the lie that things the way they are, that what you experience, good or bad, is really happening, when you shouldn't.

The only things that should happen, are the things that you desire to happen.

Are you asking who or what determines is basic education? If so, then I would suggest that is you and I (society). The idea of what is necessary education changes all the time and varies all over the world and even from state to state, in America.

When you say that the only things that should happen are the things you desire. Then I would have to say that, ultimately those are the only things that do end up happening. Anyone who has gone to school has realized that the only people that excel are the people that actually want to learn. I think you can be forced to learn much in the way babies are forced to learn but those who want to learn are the ones that retain the knowledge and don't just rely on unprecedented memory recall. I think this same idea can be applied to the creativity aspect but I really don't think we should go there because creativity relative.

People are obviously forced to learn basic skills that assist them in living and being apart of society, however the choice for them to live amongst society and adopt the basic rules we agree upon as a community is entirely their choice as well as is their choice of what they choose to learn after reaching full self-awareness.

What you say is true, but if there was no doubt or fear, or lack of confidence and ability to get what one desires - none of this would be here, the universe wouldn't be made of atoms, etc.

However, the reason this world is the way it is is due to a very specific balance of confidence and doubt, manifested through the law of attraction. We're all one consciousness. Choice exists, that is the complete creation equation. Our doubts and fears take on physical form, we're afraid so and so will create an institution called school, and they do because we doubted that it wouldn't happen. We doubted that school was all fun and games, and so it is tedious and boring AF. We doubted that learning could be fun, and so it's not. It is NOT placebo and nocebo, those were meaningless and nonexistent until I empowered them with existence by applying meaning to them myself.

Originally posted by Oliver North
hardly

in my experience, high grades are a sign of neuroses and a lack of social/emotional development. All of it is anecdotal, but I've never met someone who gets good marks that is as well adjusted and mature as those who couldn't give a shit.

That being said, those neurotics get to go on to PhD, I get to find another job.

i have straight A's at my college. in high school i didn't give a shit and hardly ever even showed up. i think there was one semester where i actually got straight Fs. i just wasn't that motivated to make money at the time. somehow i graduated anyway. they basically just push you through eventually.then i spent the next 5 or so years making bad decisions and working shit jobs. so i mostly make sure to have good grades now to correct the mess that i made by not giving a shit before.

Yeah, so, lets assume for a moment that "education is forced creativity" is correct under our understanding of education an creativity. Obviously "creativity can not be forced" is bullshit. So...paradox solved?