A new federal report recommends that schools emphasize building children's "self-regulation" skills in order to increase opportunities for student success in a number of areas. The recommendation is one of several in the report, the fourth in a series on self-regulation research and practice from the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Researchers have zeroed in on the importance of self-regulation skills, which allow children to manage their thoughts and feelings, control impulses, and problem-solve.
"Self-regulation affects wellbeing across the lifespan, from mental health and emotional wellbeing to academic achievement, physical health, and socioeconomic success," said Desiree Murray, associate director of research at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute and lead author of the report. "Unfortunately, prolonged or pronounced stress and adversity, including poverty and trauma, can delay children's self-regulation development."
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:51AM
Too much self regulation?
Oh right, "self-regulation" means mindless arbitrary obedience.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:07PM
> Oh right, "self-regulation" means mindless arbitrary obedience.
No. It means the ability to defer short-term rewards in favor of increased benefits in the long-term.
Like not eating one cookie now if that will result in you getting two cookies in half an hour.
Or ... waiting until you know what dafuq you are talking about instead of rushing to make stupid first posts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:32PM
Where's the benefit for an AC to make a reasoned informed post, when inflammatory obtuse slightly off topic posts can get such a flaming response?
Lack of desire to self-regulate would seem to be the primary motivator for posting anonymously.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:25PM
We used to call that sort of thing self control. Not sure why it needs to be rebranded as "self regulation".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:42PM
It's a Republican thing. Regulation, bad. Personal responsibility, good, if it means I don't have to pay taxes. It seems that after a long eight years of dormancy, the Cheney plants in the Federal civil service are finally being activated, and spewing forth programmatic right wing policies like this. Either that, or the DOE is so scared of Trump eliminating the entire agency that they are not willing to say anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:09PM
Self-regulation is the practice of empathy with your future self. All Humans should be capable of Empathy (unless suffering from various psychological conditions) and anticipation of future states (unless entirely retarded).
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:14PM
So, if I smoke and drink too much, but am saving for my pension and assuming a miracle cure for cancer and cirrhosis of the liver in my lifetime, what does that make me?
Or perhaps I'm so scared of Alzheimer's and dementia that I want to make sure I can go out in style drinking and smoking all I want?
So fucking confused. Do I exercise to live long in poverty and insanity or live short in luxury?
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:07PM
Self-regulation is the practice of empathy with your future self.
The other AC nailed it
No. It means the ability to defer short-term rewards in favor of increased benefits in the long-term.
That's it. And as JoeMerchant noted, it's pretty much a synonym for self-control.
All Humans should be capable of Empathy (unless suffering from various psychological conditions) and anticipation of future states (unless entirely retarded).
Funny how a bunch of the people who laud empathy seem pretty far down on the emotional intelligence stat. Perhaps feeling what other people choose to emote is not the best way to understand other peoples' actual emotional state or point of view?
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:19AM
No, not at all. Teaching social and emotional skills is something that's sorely lacking in modern education. Sure, the parents should be teaching these skills to their children, but what better place is there to learn than in school? Kids see teachers and other students for more hours per day than their parents after all. This isn't about "be quiet and obey unquestioningly", is about teaching children successful attitudes and building skills that help people function in society.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:53AM
niggers
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Type44Q on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:25AM
The question is, what do we do with the defective product runs that can't be fed back into the assembly line and remanufactured (i.e. the young "adults" that don't have these so-called skills)?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:40AM
The answer is prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:33PM
Now, now. The answer is the military.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:48AM
Fuck dude, we've already got a generation of them, at the world is already waiting with bated breath to find out. So far, things aren't looking so good.
A percentage will finally get their heads screwed on straight after a few years of seeing how the real world operates (guilty as charged). A few will end up on the dole, certainly a burden, but at least not causing much harm (several of my friends), and some will rage at the injustice of it all that the world doesn't cater to their every whim.
From my limited perspective it has more to do with what circumstances will allow. If there is a reliable path forward through self-discipline, most will take it. If there isn't, well, that is the $1000 question now isn't it?
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:15PM
Same old, same old, business as usual then?
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:19PM
Unfortunately, one of the things that has changed dramatically over the past 60 years is the level of entrepreneurship (not to mention the education that makes this possible). Most education today is geared to being a cog somewhere, not to mention the regulatory environment is way more complicated.
Back in the day when dinosaurs roamed the earth, even the less than capable academically could put their shingle out, and through trial and error get the basics down (with a heaping side of responsibility).
Now it is some strange startup mentality of IPOs and venture capital that would be hardly recognizable to someone starting a plumbing fixture service back in the day.
Things like Kickstarter and the like may change things to where people feel ownership in what they are doing, which is one of those unspoken parts of self-discipline.
But there are also a lot of shysters out there who will mooch until the whole thing comes crashing down.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:09PM
Now it is some strange startup mentality of IPOs and venture capital that would be hardly recognizable to someone starting a plumbing fixture service back in the day.
IPOs and VC aren't for plumbers. You wouldn't use them now for starting up a plumbing business any more than you would then.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:57AM
By "so-called," I should say that these aren't conventional "skills" that can be taught systematically and/or institutionally....
(Score: 3, Informative) by Geezer on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:18AM
Once upon a time we simply described this process as "growing up."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:30AM
This is the Age of the Perpetual Adolescence, where 40 is the new 20, middle-aged women fawning openly over teens isn't considered creepy at all, and society generally tends towards worship of youth, which by proxy means worship of immaturity, banality, and conceitedness.
It is the age of cocoon children, which means any "growing up" will happen long after they've had children of their own.
That's going to work out well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:38AM
I don't wanna grow up! I'm a Toys R Us kid!
The best part of growing older is learning exactly how your toys work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5QbrRRMg20 [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:49AM
I remember it being called "self-discipline" and being taught with a paddle or a belt. It's served me well in life, though I probably could have used a few more swats.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:58AM
Well that will be an interesting circumstance, no?
Instill discipline without any methods to enforce discipline.
(For the record, I find spanking children over 6 to be idiotic).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:23PM
We didn't spank our kids, but when they were very small, immediate physical feedback was occasionally appropriate. A thwack, when the kid throws the bowl of soup off the table, that sort of thing.
Once the kids reach an age where they can reason and communicate - your limit of age six is fine, maybe even a bit late - physical feedback should no longer be necessary, at least for most kids. If it is, you may have already failed your job as a parent.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:16PM
Continued physical feed-back at that point instills a 'healthy' fear of authority.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:33PM
Every child is different, some get labels like "Autistic" or "communication impaired" where some form of physical communication is necessary because the verbal channel just isn't effective. And the age limit of 6 is nice for children who fall in the middle of the bell curve, but probably 50% or more of the population might have a more appropriate age of 7 or more, or 5 or less.
Then we have the Mighty Buzzards of the world who were trained with the belt, and if it was good enough for them, it must be good enough for all children everywhere. Problem is, not all parents have enough empathy with their kids to know when the belt is doing more harm than good, it's an easy line to cross and the negative consequences can last for generations.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:52PM
I know all kids are different, so I don't judge parents (unless they're actually abusive) -- if some small amount of physical reinforcement helps with your kid, I can't judge.
But I do think that many parents (not all) resort to such measures out of frustration, often because they too aren't consistent or lack control in their own behaviors when it comes to discipline, and their kids can easily sense that.
I learned how NOT to discipline from my mother, who never spanked me or otherwise hit me (that I can recall), but who would get very worked up and start shouting to try to gain control over kids. But that seemed somewhat haphazard, and she'd make threats that were very inconsistently enforced -- "You won't get X EVER AGAIN!!" The result, of course, is that I realized this even as a young kid and even found it mildly amusing at times to see her get worked up. Not a recipe for discipline.
When my own kid came along, I resolved NEVER to raise my voice with him except deliberately. It's really hard sometimes as parents, because kids do ridiculous things, very frustrating things, creating huge messes, etc. But shouting at them arbitrarily out of your own frustration does NO good. I only ever raised my voice deliberately, generally to signal something that was actually dangerous for the kid. It was so unexpected for him and he was so shocked (and perhaps a bit frightened) when I did so, that often only one such warning was necessary for him to realize the severity of what he was doing.
In terms of spanking/physical reinforcement, I personally found the "time out" system to be perfectly adequate, without ever resorting to hitting. Kids are generally capable of "reason" of some sort by age 2 or so (at least in terms of consequences for bad actions), and at some point we introduced a "counting" system before the time out. And it is a sort of "physical" reinforcement in the sense that you have to move the kid, so it goes beyond verbal stuff.
The key, from my perspective, is just consistency, whatever your disciplinary method. If you say something will happen, you MUST follow through. And you have to find something suitably unpleasant -- for me, the "time out" was always done in such a way that it was unpleasant. The few times that it seemed like the kid was still laughing and not taking it seriously, we had ways to make the time out situation seem MORE unpleasant (removing stuffed animals that he found soothing, etc.). By the time the kid was 5, we almost never had to actually enforce a time-out anymore -- just threatening it or starting the count was plenty motivation.
And, particularly when young, there CANNOT be exceptions -- again, consistency. So many times it seems like parents just let things go because it's too inconvenient or disruptive or embarrassing to discipline -- you're at the grandparents, or at a friend's house, or out at a restaurant, or whatever, and you just "let it go" that time. Big mistake.
For my kid, if he acted out at a restaurant (and I'm not talking about running around the room or whatever -- I mean just started having a minor fit, making too much noise, etc.), it was a "time out" in the car. Out of the restaurant. Immediately. We started doing that even before he turned 2. Was that a pain to do? Yeah. Did it disrupt our dinner sometimes with friends, etc.? Yes. But by age 3 (and only a handful of such actions) he had figured it out, and we were able to take him to upscale fancy restaurants for meals lasting a couple of hours, and we'd get random complements from other restaurant guests about how they couldn't believe how well-behaved he was. (And compared to the common situation today where it seems many parents let their kids wander randomly around restaurants, playing games, pestering other people, making disruptive noise, etc., he certainly was an "angel.")
Again, I'm NOT saying such things will work for every kid. I just think being consistent, ALWAYS following through on whatever disciplinary penalties you threaten, and always remaining in control of your own emotions and frustration, will get you a long way with little kids. If kids sense that they can ever "get attention" or "get a rise" from you -- even yelling at them -- without sufficiently unpleasant consequences, they WILL take advantage of that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:15PM
One last thing -- I should say that the "time out" for us was also a kind of "last resort." In most cases with younger kids, you often just need to "redirect" behavior, encouraging them to do something more positive, rather than continuing the negative behavior. Even a simple distraction can often be enough. When he became older and could understand, we'd threaten various consequences (losing privileges, etc.). It was only when those things didn't work -- or the kid was just out of control and needed a break to be removed from the situation -- that "time out" became the option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:54PM
Thank you for your posts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:59AM
It still works wonderfully as punctuation for the lesson of the day right up until they're out of the house. The shame of being treated like a child alone should help cement what you were trying to teach.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:36PM
For the record, I find spanking children over 6 to be idiotic
If your child still exhibits behavior that would require spanking after the age of six then you have failed as a parent or your child needs to become a life-long customer of Big Pharma.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:08PM
Yep, it's the job of parents.
The hard question (and no, I don't have an answer) is: What are schools supposed to do with kids who parents fail to instill self-discipline?
I mean, you don't want the barbarians distracting the students who might be able to learn something. On the other hand, throwing them onto the streets isn't a solution either. Punish the parents? Most likely, these are exactly the parents who are already on the bottom of the societal barrel.
No easy answers, but I really don't think schools are able to solve this problem.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:38PM
Schools should teach children knowledge and critical thinking skills, not behavioral norms. That is the job of the parents (as you stated).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:24PM
The problem is that those children's non-adherence to certain behavioural norms may impede not only the ability of the school to teach those kids, but even its ability to teach the other kids. So what should the school do in that case?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:49PM
So what should the school do in that case?
Suspend or expel them. There are schools specifically designed to deal with these types of students but regular schools (and the students attending them) should not have to deal with this type of behavior disrupting the learning environment. I'm not talking about the kids who don't want to play kickball, or who are socially awkward, or who don't trust "the establishment". Just the trouble makers who repeatedly interrupt the learning process for the rest of the class or school.
There are a few kids of students who are treated as "problems":
- Those with genuine behavioral issues that need special education and medical care. These children are not trying to be a problem and should be treated as such.
- Those who are acting out to seek attention. These children generally don't like the extra disciplinary attention they get in schools for problem kids and they get their act together within a year or two.
- Those who are never going to try to interact with society in an acceptable fashion. These children will grow up to be ongoing problems.
Removing the true problem kids - the bottom two categories on the list - from the regular schools results in improved learning for those who are capable of not disrupting the leaning environment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:14AM
If schools are really about critical thinking and education (they're not), then they shouldn't teach mindless adherence to behavioral norms. In fact, I'd argue that they already do so, just not explicitly.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:52PM
you don't want the barbarians distracting the students who might be able to learn something.
In the old days a lot of tracking went on, and they improperly mixed the learning disabled kids with the miscreants, which probably did neither any good. A new track system where miscreants are distinctly separated from the disabled would be fair and effective.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:53PM
In the old days, they also separated out the intelligent children. I had an IQ test before third grade, and that determined my placement in advanced classes for the next six years (really for the rest of my life - I ended up getting a PhD). I never even saw any of the barbarians or the disabled until high school, when we started having mixed gym classes with the general population. I had a mixed German class one year, and I got to see the barbarians (well, the ones who signed up for foreign language) up close. I didn't understand why we had to waste time on their discipline problems when I was ready to move on and learn new things. I ended up reading some Goethe by the end of first year, but we could have done so much more without the distractions of the useless kids.
Nowadays, that's rarely done. The smart kids are lumped in with the average and below-average ("mainstreaming"), and they waste a lot of time sitting there in class waiting for the stupid to catch up. It's terribly unfair to anyone who isn't slow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:23AM
In my experience, the "smart kids" are mostly just kids who can memorize more information more quickly and spew it all back on homework assignments and tests. I was in advanced classes, and truly intelligent people were rare even in that environment due to the extremely low standards that schools have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:57AM
Why not? Actions have consequences. Children should not be sheltered from learning this most fundamental of lessons.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:56PM
Perhaps if the blows weren't administered to you head, things would have worked out better for you :P
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:56AM
That's funny, that is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:30PM
If it's administered to you, then it's just plain 'discipline'!
IME as an adult (chronologically, at least) without quite enough self-control, self-discipline can't be imposed upon you. It's something you must learn for yourself.
In fact, having it imposed can be counterproductive: the more you get used to someone else checking up on you, the less you learn to do it for yourself.
But if that's not the way to teach self-discipline, what is? How do you responsible, mature, self-controlled folks (come on, there must be some of you here) learn that???
[sig redacted]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:59PM
the more you get used to someone else checking up on you, the less you learn to do it for yourself.
Curious if you were in the military. Based on observation during basic, there exists at least one strategy that is likely to teach self discipline.
Of course that leads right into arguments about somewhere between 99% and 90% of the population aren't tough enough to survive the training. Perhaps the tiny minority of the population who graduate basic training are somehow self selected to be highly susceptible, perhaps unconsciously, to self discipline. Its clouded by sending kids thru, so at least some of the 18 yr olds probably would have naturally un-fucked-up themselves even if they had stayed home and played video games instead of going to basic. Oh and last but not least its possible its all cognitive bias that everyone thinks basic looks like it teaches self discipline but maybe learning how to march and shoot and first aid is a simulation of self discipline.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:55AM
Repeated from above: Regular discipline does the teaching, self-discipline is what you learn.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:14PM
Self-discipline is more about controlling one's own actions to the benefit of community or society. Self-regulation is about controlling one's own actions to the benefit of self (or more precisely future self). When taught in such a way, it can increase compliance with the principle, because the perceived benefit is primarily one's own interest, instead of primarily other's interest and secondarily one's own interest. TLDR: It makes people more open to it because people are selfish
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:43PM
bogus, arbitrary distinction, thank you very much . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:20PM
People's selfishness often depends on the situation and what values they have been taught. There is no easy shortcut to making something matter to a kid.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:55PM
being taught with a paddle or a belt. It's served me well in life, though I probably could have used a few more swats.
And the mighty butthurt comes out in favor of beating children.
Who would have guessed he would advocate for doing to helpless children what would be considered a felony if done to an adult?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:53AM
Corporal punishment done correctly is not abuse, it is punctuation to the lesson being taught.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by oldmac31310 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:09PM
Explains a lot.
(Score: 1) by BenFenner on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:11PM
Being self-disciplined means you were not taught with a paddle or a belt, or any traditional discipline from outside factors. Being self-disciplined means you behave[d] in a socially acceptable manner due to a code of conduct you created by yourself, for yourself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:52AM
Regular discipline is what teaches you. Self-discipline is what you learn.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:54AM
Indeed. You need to know how to defend yourself from an early age. Shooting, stabbing, or simply fighting back against someone who is trying to assault you is a good way to learn how to do that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:28PM
Good luck with that. I don't know anyone whose dad couldn't beat the complete hell out of them while they were still living at home if it became necessary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:09PM
Yeah, my first though was "why are they using a term discredited years ago by the finance industry?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:11PM
> I should say that these aren't conventional "skills" that can be taught systematically and/or institutionally....
Pay attention to what you just wrote.
The report recommends teaching these skills.
And your immediate conclusion is that they are not teachable.
Based on what evidence? Your own lack of such skills that lead you to make that post without considering the logic of what you were saying?
You might as well be asking what are we going to do with the kids who can't be taught math.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:44PM
You're trying to hard to explain something simple. GP is just another fucking retard, incapable of learning useful skills.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:38PM
You are in error. The proper term that should have been used in TFA is "self discipline". There are indeed systematic and institutinal methods of teaching the "skill" or quality of self discipline. Military schools use these methods, some with better results, some with poor results. Discipline. Of course, that word is politically incorrect. It implies responsiblity, which few people are willing to assume today.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:45PM
My gut level prediction is some kind of universal national service is rapidly approaching. I have a couple sub-predictions.
Army if you don't mind pulling a trigger and are one of the extreme minority of athletic non-obese non-drug using kids. Which used to me almost all the kids when I was young, but now is like 5% of kids, which is a whole nother problem. Peace corps if you like foreigners and can speak a foreign language. Something like a reborn CCC for the vast majority remainder.
To some extent those are all "develop self discipline or die or at least suffer horribly" pathways. So the problem kinda takes care of itself.
When the higher ed bubble finishes popping, combined with automation wiping out many jobs, we'll have to do something with young people where the economy doesn't have jobs for them, but there is nothing useful to teach them after ten or twenty years as students.
Another gut level sub-guess, they'll generally be no deferments officially (theres always going to be medical, or legal or immigration or unavoidable stuff), If you're in the USA legally or not, you'll be in service from 18-22 or some four year period, but you'll be automatically granted leave if you are in one of the few schools that survive the higher ed bubble pop during the semester. Likewise for online classes you'll be in service every single day, but you'll automatically get afternoons off for classwork if progress is made. That's where the corruption will exist for rich kids, where in the Reserves all we did in the morning was PMCS and paperwork and donuts and briefings, then the rich kids can spend the afternoon attend $20K per class art history basket weaving where merely logging in gets an automatic A while the poorer kids actually do work thru the afternoon. The CCC analogy would be everyone wakes up in the barracks and between breakfast and lunch the kids do paperwork and vehicle maint and aids awareness training and diversity training and all that kind of filler, then after lunch the poor dumb kids do habitat for humanity stuff and environmental remediation or whatever, while the rich kids and some of the smarter kids do online classes. My guess is they'll fold the trades and apprenticeships into it too, so half a day per week apprentice plumbers will sweep sidewalks or habitat for humanity or whatever, they already take time out of a full day schedule for education as it is.
I'll throw out a third gut level guess is something like this will be a compromise "final solution" for illegal immigrants, you won't leave, fine, you get to pick one of three, we violently throw you out with nothing but the clothes on your back if that much, or you learn english and carry a M16/M4 for four years, or you learn english and carry a shovel for four years. I think that a good compromise because everyone would be equally unhappy with it. I'm not thrilled with it but I could tolerate it. Its kinda the starship troopers amendment to the immigration laws.
A forth gut level guess is they'll either play social engineering games and simply kick out pregnant and young mothers but provide generous marriage pay bonuses to social engineer a nice looking society, or any pregnant chick or mother will be doing her four years more or less at home, slave labor sold to day cares and elementary schools by the government just like they sell slave labor from prisons into call centers and stuff. So if their kid is in school they're a volunteer school aide and if their kid is not in school they get farmed out to a daycare. Either way they're like 50 feet from their kid(s), or maybe a little further for punishment but at least in the same building. If they behave they get to be reading teachers classroom aides, if they don't behave they get to be custodians, if they really misbehave they take their kids to prison with them till their 4 years are up.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:08PM
"'final solution' for illegal immigrants."
I know you weren't advocating genocide, but choosing wording like that can lead many to think you are. Or maybe you are, and are dropping that phrase as a threat disguised as subtext. Suddenly, I'm not so sure you didn't do it on purpose.
See why it's problematic?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:17PM
Maybe he's just a fan of Rocket From the Tombs.
Calm down Francis.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:17PM
I liked the word choice because there are similarities. Not problematic but precise and intentioned.
First of all from the left they will be very unhappy with endless analogies to the more famous solution, if its done "soon" like next 8 years. Its slavery, putting them in camps, etc. Unless of course a lefty president signs the bill in 9 years in which case it'll be brilliant and great, in the same fake news anyway. Regardless of who does it, it doesn't seem terribly controversial that what you're mentioning will be used in propaganda against whichever side implements the fix. Its not an unrealistic prediction of the opposing propaganda given historical events and superficial (but wrong) analogies.
Secondly the attitude is similar in that nobody gonna enjoy it very much and many will claim it unnecessary and many will declare it evil, but decades or centuries of kicking the can down the road are over, here's a final solution to the problem. It'll be vilified, yet seen as necessary when its finally implemented. Sometimes if you want to eliminate a problem you have to accept vilification, there are some problems that can't be fixed without sacrifice. So I'm not even annoyed at the first paragraph above, its gonna be rough to implement, but necessary, and the implementor, whoever it is, whatever side they're on, is going to catch a lot of flak about having done it. I don't think that's avoidable. Big problems result in big propaganda when they're fixed, thats how it is. So I think it realistic that not only will there exist propaganda against it, its going to be loud propaganda.
Thirdly there is the subtext in the Newtonian equal and opposite reaction. In that we know from historical experience that extreme values of pressure multiplied by time results in extreme results such as ovens and other well known unpleasantness. I'm not saying the logic or reasoning was correct, but I do believe in the mathematical model of integrate (in the calculus sense) enough problem over time, then as a mathematical fact after a certain line is crossed the ovens come out. I think it quite possible times could be very bad for immigrants in some imaginary "kick the can future" decades from now, very bad indeed, if nothing is "fixed". So there is a not veiled threat that if its not defused peacefully and early, possibly by a plan much like this, things could blow up more severely at a later time. Race war, genocide ... about all they have in common is historically everyone always thinks it'll happen to someone else and can't happen here, every victim says that. So yeah, its kinda a shot across the bow that kicking the can was funny for a few decades, but eventually a solution will be applied and I prefer mine above vs historical examples of firing up the ovens. Fix it soon enough and its off topic. Wait long enough while not fixing it and it seems inevitable that it'll unfortunately be very much on topic. Something like I propose we fix it soon the right way, or we all know how things inevitably can get fixed later the wrong way...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:26PM
Darn lack of editing, missed my forth argument for why the phrasing is absolutely perfect. I like alt-history and hard sci fi and thought experiments and last time people were rounded up into work camps "Arbeit macht frei" was like a sarcastic joke cause they got ovened. But what if they didn't and they got released unharmed in four years... would people still be complaining about war crimes? So its an interesting "someone should write a fictional-ish book" what if the final solution to illegals was to round them up into work camps with "Arbeit macht frei" written over the door and we actually literally did it, and they're free naturalized citizens if and only if they work for four years... Yeah may suck as a fictional book but its something to think about as a thought experiment.
Remember if you're rich enough every country in the world sells citizenship including the USA, costs I believe $500K in the USA, cheaper elsewhere. Conceptually this "work makes you free" work camp is paying the illegals $125K/yr and then collecting their entire tax free back pay after four years and issuing naturalization papers. $125K for some shovel work with benes and required free english classes seems a pretty fair deal to me, its not like we're paying prison labor wages here.
Prison labor wages are a whole nother travesty.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:33PM
So it is open threats of genocide and forced labor, then. Noted. Nobody need give you any benefit of the doubt anymore, nor attend to anything you write, because you admit your motivation. Your words come from depravity and drive toward perdition.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Webweasel on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:47PM
No critique of VLM here, he used it intentionally and knew the context.
But man I wish people would learn history before spouting this kinda crap.
Currently my company is going through a internal rebranding called "THECOMPANYNAME(tm) way" You know, crap like "we listen to our customers" and "we are brave and do the right thing" etc.
So, we have posters around "One THECOMPANYNAME(tm)" promoting the "company way"
Everyday I have to resist writing "ein volk ein reich ein fuhrer ein THECOMPANY(tm)" on the posters.
Our head of infosec keeps talking about "The final solution" I told him he'd get kicked out of the labour party if he didn't stop. No one got it....
THEN the company came out with a "Five year plan"
I can't take anything seriously any more. Have these people ever studied history?
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:44PM
Somehow, I get the impression that there is someone in management at THECOMPANYNAME(tm) with a rather sly but twisted sense of humor. That's just my take on the situation.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:57PM
That's the most wretched aspect of this election's outcome, that VLM and his philosophical confederates have come out of the woodwork. Openly arguing for policies that would lead to forced labor and genocide. There is no excuse for that.
If there's anything good about it, it's that they've declared for evil. We don't have to guess or waste time and energy offering them quarter.
As far as loose usage and the inadvertent use of freighted terms go, yes, we could hope that people were less ignorant. They're never going to be. Even with universal public education, they persist. Even when you as a society succeed in teaching someone like VLM some useful skill, he uses hatred to drill into your skin and embed himself like a chigger, and you have difficulty rooting him out.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:42PM
Apropos of nothing in particular, you might find this interview of Steve Bannon [ijr.com] illuminating. One particular quote stood out for me:
Hmmm, I just wonder what Dick Cheney thinks of his being elevated to the Triumvirate of Evil. Or maybe he thinks of those other two guys as mere dilettantes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:15PM
Aw, Phoenix doesn't strike me as a bad sort (at least not as bad as others), but maybe forgets that until people are loaded up on the cattle cars, these are just words; ideas to be batted back and forth with no actual harm done to anyone.
And if he takes a step back, VLM's ideas aren't much different than what has been proposed for the DREAM Act, and national service service for citizenship has been around since forever.
As VLM puts it, these aren't new ideas. And comparisons to the Holocaust don't make for a convincing counter-argument.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 07 2016, @11:15PM
That's the most wretched aspect of this election's outcome, that VLM and his philosophical confederates have come out of the woodwork. Openly arguing for policies that would lead to forced labor and genocide. There is no excuse for that.
No excuse, definitely. But it is the silver lining of the Trumpheteer's victory. All these neo-Nazis were in the closet before. Now they think it is alright to speak up. This is a good thing, because we can identify them, and arrest them and deport them back to Nazi Germany where they came from. This is the thing about white supremecists: they are not too bright. bart.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:24PM
You're right about that. We should all give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but now VLM has relieved us of that burden in his case. His intentions are malevolent. Sadly, we cannot send him back in time to Nazi Germany, so that he might perhaps have been rehabilitated by the post-war German education system that has been largely successful in teaching its citizens that genocide is bad.
Let's not call him or white supremacists stupid unnecessarily, though. Foolish, yes. Short-sighted, yes. Malevolent, certainly. VLM is intelligent, and so are other white supremacists, I'm sure. The architects of the original 'Final Solution,' that VLM referred to, had PhD's. Ergo, not stupid. VLM does supply us with a fresh example that intelligence and virtue are not synonymous.
I regret that a Soylentil would openly advocate for enslaving and annihilating groups of human beings. It's a reminder to those who strive to knit civilization together that they can never rest on their laurels, because there are always perfidious characters among them who would use terror and assassination to tear it apart again.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:53PM
You're not a member of the Kool Kolored Kids Klub? Join the KKKK now!
(Score: 1) by oldmac31310 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:13PM
Ignore this VLM troll, please.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:13PM
Forgot war.
It seems every generation gets a war proportional to how much excess capability there is. The perpetual war on terror being the lowest casualty wise, but longest lived. Keeps those people out of the job market.
I always figured there would be unofficial prostitution for the women folk, like the French in Algiers. Mandatory birth control, keeps up morale, and the possibility several will go native and become some one else's problem.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:53PM
Forgot war.
Yeah I kinda was hoping no one would bring that up. Ideally the army conscripts would spend all their time supporting local NG deployments after hurricanes and stuff, but even in an era of drones and stuff you're gonna need something for infantry conscripts to invade once in awhile.
In practice I was looking for continuous flow solutions rather than batch processes like WWI and WWII of building up a huge pile of millions excess then killing them all off in couple years and repeating.
As I mentioned the problem is kind of self limiting in that things are getting ever more complicated and cannon fodder ever less valuable, combined with practically none of the population not being fat, out of shape, drugged, legal issues, would seem to naturally limit military adventurism.
It is interesting to theorize, hard sci fi or alternative history plot style, what would happen if the worlds militaries were like F all this health and strength and weight standard stuff and rolled in off the shelf bubbas. Imagine an infantry squad in WW3 where the average weight is 325 pounds (not muscle BTW) no ability to run, smoke weed every day... but would it REALLY matter if all they're doing is guarding gates to drone control bases, or if they mostly exist to be drone-cannon-fodder to delay their drones while ours advance? Hmm. Modern military doctrine is all soldiers will be WW2 infantry movie heros, but maybe that doctrine is obsolete and an army of extreme-REMFs (decades ago we called them REMFs, I guess theres a more PC term today) could win...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:26PM
The DOD just changed their physical and even criminal requirements if you have decent computer and "hacking" skills. I could easily see a portion of cyber warfare resembling credit farming or even eSports teams, with rotating members on patrol. Remember that even for WWII, the military didn't have the best of the best to choose from, and either got people to minimum proficiency, or they got assigned to deskforce duties.
I could see long term Starship Troopers scenarios playing out if not by decree but by common practice, to get a national pension at the end (as that is definitely a dying out). Don't know how I feel about that, as it seems ripe for abuse, and setting the stage for perpetuating an oligarchy that would be tough to get new blood in (just send dissenters to suicide missions).
But at least for those of limited value, national service seems to be way out (and I say that as a government employee).
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 07 2016, @03:41PM
just send dissenters to suicide missions
Speaking of pensions and benefits, we already have something like my plan for school teachers where their student loans are forgiven if they put on the bullet proof vest and teach in some tough schools for awhile. Assuming they don't die their loans are discharged. So in that way all I'm proposing is expanding something like that from a tiny group with a tiny benefit to pretty much everyone is required to participate. Its not a new idea... I think its a scalable idea. I suppose that could be argued against, but its certainly factually not a new idea.
Another interesting analogy WRT scalability and acceptability is France has had this policy for almost two centuries with the Foreign Legion where anyone willing to fight for five years (well, and pass the med screen to be allowed to fight...) can ask for naturalization papers. It seems to work pretty well. So I'm suggesting scaling it to a mere 4 years and opening it to general purpose government slavery rather than specifically being cannon fodder. Again its not a new idea, just something to be scaled a bit from "some volunteers" to "if you are a live human in this geographic area". Which seems realistic, or realistic-ish?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:41PM
My understanding is that the French Foreign Legion is far more selective in who they accept now (perhaps someone from France can clarify this?) in that if you don't already have some skills, they don't want you.
I assume this is due to French citizenship being more valuable, although with their immigrant problems, this may no longer be the case.
Anyway, the notion of taking all comers, while distinctly American, isn't really practiced anymore. And there is the issue of demographic shifts, while unavoidable, cause people consternation that it isn't "their" country anymore. There is something to be said for integration, but really, we've been down this path before with Reagan.
In the more present future, I see the US operating closer to Israel, allowing workers and the like in, but reserving citizenship for people who have something beyond labor to offer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:34AM
Uh, yeah, shouldn't this be the domain of parents to hopefully assist with self-control?
I mean this isn't exactly a new [wikipedia.org] development, except for the addition of a consistent environment, which should be de facto in a classroom anyway. You want to improve outcomes? Improve the consistency of instructors.
Beyond that, schools don't seem to be doing a great job with the fundamentals. I'm not so sure adding an additional checkbox to the curriculum is going to be helpful in the least, and just add more strain to already overburdened lesson plans.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @10:47AM
Which one of these are they calling self-regulation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @01:41PM
Which one of these are they calling self-regulation?
Not masturbating in class: self regulation.
Not picking on a kid because he's different from you: oppressing freedom of expression.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @12:41PM
Funny, a person name "Desiree" talking about self regulation. On par with the dentist named Earnest Rheamer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:37PM
And my study shows that educators need to learn how to tailor an educational program to be appropriate to the age of the child rather than attempting to remold the child to fit their agenda. If your kindergarten classroom resembles a miniature version of a 3rd grade classroom, you're doing it wrong.
That said, self control is important as long as it's not mixed up with willingly allowing others to control. The kid who didn't line up may have perfect control, it's just that his goals and yours may not be well aligned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:37PM
Yup!! My young dog would sit in the park for 15 mins after everyone was gone cause she didn't want to leave. Yelling only made her afraid a and run away, chasing only made it seem like a game... Treats only sometimes worked. What was the answer? A lot of patience, time, and yrainning. Eventually she learned that I wouldn't hurt her and that listening to me really was the best way to go about things. I rarely had to use serious punishment like not getting dinner, and physical discipline of pain would have made things worse. There is no easy path to parenting / teaching, you have to work with the individual until they "get it" themselves and see the value in doing it your way. Try to force that agreement and you'll have counter productive results. At best you'll get a handful of dutiful little shits who can't think for themselves, and a smaller handful of rebellious shits who will grow up bitter and doing things their own way.
Stupid article, its just natural development. We should be teaching parents the overall theory and pitfalls, not exact methods on how to raise kids. Every kid is different, some drastically so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @04:26PM
This honestly sounds like some new educational fad. Sure everyone can use better self-regulation, but to me it sounds like a cop out for our shitty education system. We need more teachers, and we need to make learning less structured around grades. Year grades force some kids back to waste a lot of time repeating things they've learned instead of focusing on the bits they need. Assignment grades are focused on too heavily and set psychological limitations on students such as "I'm a C student, it doesn't matter if I try so I'll just skate through."
Self-regulation sounds great, but I have huge reservations about schools being able to effectively teach it. Besides, I think critical thinking and showing kids that they can learn how to solve our world's problems would be way more effective. Right now the level of cynicism and hopelessness is so high that students are bitter about life before they really get started!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:18PM
Of course I'm sure they'll find some way to mess this up anyway.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:26PM
> Self regulation is, of course, the only good form of regulation.
There is a lot of irony in the guy who can't control himself from posting in the most whacked out font available on the site talking up self-regulation
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @02:02AM
One-Size-Fits-All thinking is absolutely not a good way to approach education, least of all kids. Adults, at least, have some mental flexibility (well, some do ...) whereas kids have all sorts of open issues to deal with.
Most particularly, kids simply do not respond the same way to incentives and punishments. I vividly remember one boy in my class (many, many years ago) who openly laughed at physical punishment administered by a female teacher - because she slapped him on the palm. Then a male teacher produced a cane, and suddenly he stopped laughing. He was utterly unmanageable until the big guns came out, but then he was suddenly good as gold. A talking-to? He didn't care. Shaming? He wasn't ashamed. Time-outs? Used to plan his next exploit. A few little smacks? Fun! A cane in the hands of someone who could cross his threshold? Important.
It was better for him, and for the whole class, for him to get a thorough, public caning when he crossed a line of disruption. Abuse? No, he wasn't flogged until he bled, he wasn't sadistically tormented. He was testing his boundaries and he found where those boundaries were in a way that he bounced back from in minutes - without forgetting.
And no, the rest of the class wasn't traumatised either. It was time for the regular tune-up, and we all knew it - and knew that if we didn't cause problems, we wouldn't get problems.
Did he learn "Self-Regulation"? Yes, he did. Eventually. Some of us learned a lot faster. But eventually even he realised what the limits were, and stayed within them.
Also, it means different things to different kids. To some it meant that they should obey the rules, and find their amusements elsewhere. Others simply got to understand that the real sin was getting caught. I don't care what disciplinary system you use - that dichotomy still exists, and any notions of self-regulation that some federal bureaucrat might have will not, absent a panopticon, solve that problem.
Please tell me that they don't want a panopticon.
No, wait, I know they do.