
The Lost Tools of Learning: Grammar, Dialectic, Rhetoric (1947) - benhoyt
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
======
jerf
A counterargument to the idea that we have regressed terribly and now uniquely
subject to the vicissitudes of propaganda in a new way, presented not because
I 100% believe it but because I think it worth considering: Perhaps we are so
vulnerable to audio and visual input not because our generation is so terribly
degenerate, but because it is a _new thing_ that there are no social
mechanisms to prevent.

If this is true, one would expect vulnerability to propaganda in those forms
to be going down over time, all things kept equal. Despite the cynical answer,
I think that's actually true. Propaganda from, say, 1950 seems laughably
crude. Some of that may be cultural messages that signal that of course
propagandizing against the Nazis is silly, but some of that is, I believe, the
fact that we are more hardened against that stuff both individually and as a
society than we used to be. Of course, messages have coevolved with the media,
so it can be hard to see the progress, but I contend that it is at least
plausible that we have made progress.

Similarly, it is fashionable to believe that our education level has gone
monotonically downhill for decades, but I would contend that it is likely that
there are just as many idiots (proportionally) in 1909 as there are in 2009,
it is just that the only surviving cultural material from 1909 are virtually
by definition from the upper, educated class, whereas in 2009 the media is
much more egalitarian. This has the effect of making the past look much more
educated, but this can be a selection-bias induced illusion.

I think these two ideas are worth considering. I am actually very harsh on the
modern educational system and broadly agree with this essay in most ways, but
it is still important to separate the real problems from imagined problems,
and to find the real causes and not the bias-feeding, cognitively-convenient
ones. There are things that argue against these points, too, but they are
worth considering.

~~~
321abc
According to Jacques Ellul (the favorite author of the Unabomber, and one
that, ironically, almost led to his arrest) it is education that makes us
vulnerable to propaganda.

From the introduction to Ellul's book "Propaganda":

    
    
      A related point, central in Ellul's thesis, is that modern propaganda
      cannot work without 'education'; he thus reverses the widespread
      notion that education is the best prophylactic against propaganda.
      On the contrary, he says, education, or what usually goes by that word
      in the modern world, is the absolute prerequisite for propaganda.
      In fact, education is largely identical with what Ellul call
      'pre-propaganda' ...
    
      [Ellul designates] intellectuals as virtually the most vulnerable
      of all to modern propaganda, for three reasons: (1) they absorb
      the largest amount of secondhand, unverifiable information;
      (2) they feel a compelling need to have an opinion on every important
      question of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered
      to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces of information;
      (3) they consider themselves capable of 'judging for themselves'.
    

Ellul's book on propaganda is well worth reading, as is his classic "The
Technological Society".

~~~
jerf
In a way, that sort of relates to my point. We have ignorant people, and
people susceptible to propaganda due to education. It would be expected to
take yet more time to develop a population of educated people resistant to
propaganda.

On the other hand, I find that sources such as the Unabomber tend to define
"resistant to propaganda" as "believing what I believe" (similar to the way
many people use the word "smart" to mean "believes what I believe", especially
in political contexts), which, for lack of a better word, I can only call an
immature point of view.

Anyhow, it hardly seems fair to refer to someone as "propaganda resistant"
when the reason they are resistant is that they literally can't perceive it.
That's like crediting my dog for not falling for [your favorite obviously
false ideology here]; that's not really a plus in her column.

------
cpr
These thoughts have long been a serious inspiration for us as we home-educate
our eight children. (25 (long done) down to 8.)

Sayers is also one of the world's best crime novelists (the Lord Peter Whimsey
series), the first woman PhD from Oxbridge, and made one of the most
compelling translations of Dante. Brilliant woman.

~~~
benhoyt
Wow, I bet you're one of very few eight-child fathers on HN -- good going! I'm
one of eight, but father of two. I haven't read any other Sayers, but intend
to now.

------
benhoyt
My wife and I are thinking about how to educate our daughter, so I've been
doing some reading. I found this essay by Sayers very compelling: use a
child's built-in stages of learning for what they're worth.

Our daughter is only 2.5, but she's a top-notch "Poll-Parrot" already. Cram in
the knowledge when they're good at memorizing, then teach them how to use it
and what it means later, when they're better at thinking.

------
balding_n_tired
1\. Is mathematics a sub-department of logic? One might call "distinguo" here.

2\. Is it possible that advertising and propaganda are simply not worth the
trouble in a society that has little disposable income and where the opinion
of the greatest number of its members has no effect?

@-321abc: If you are trying to illustrate Ms. Sayers' assertions about modern
education, congratulations.

