Application 2: Ava and School Policy: Authority Based Thinking
This was the first SeqComp analysis. When SeqComp was in its infancy, I thought efficiency was an innate processor in itself. I didn’t realize for sometime that it was actually just multifaceted value determination. In this application, from an incident that took place prior to the discovery of SeqComp, there will be references to efficiency. I kept the article as is to maintain the perception present at the time SCA was in its infancy, and to show SCA processes in my responses prior to the discovery of SCA.
I received a text message from my daughter who asked, “why can’t I wear a hat in school?”
Initially I responded, “it’s policy you know that”, which didn’t do anything to satisfy her curiosity but was my response based on the reasoning she does not have an alternative to get an education and the opportunity for social interaction with her peers. At the time of the text I was driving to a job that was 225 miles away and I was about halfway there which contributed to the haste of my response. Then I texted “I don’t know, ask them”.
My initial response is a product of value related to purpose in consideration of efficiency and setting. No moral judgement is considered because I don’t know the motivation and intended purpose of the policy. I confess my ignorance and encourage her to ask the school. From the text “why can’t I wear my hat in school”, my mind constructs the CDIARP and applies the basic measures for processing. I have the result which is the policy. The only moral judgement made is regarding setting. In the application of liberty setting is considered as it relates to property and states: an individual has to accept subjective imposition when interacting with a person in or with their property. One can avoid such imposition by not interacting with individuals in that setting. Avoidance is not an option because the value of my daughter attending school to acquire basic skills in a peer interactive environment, is greater than the value of her wearing a hat. From efficiency in purpose my initial response is it is the policy and she knows this, then realizing I didn’t answer her question I tell her to ask them.
She responded “Okay, but nobody can tell me what the problem is so I want to wear my hat. Apparently, it’s for “identification”. The teacher was behind me and told me I have to take my hat off. What do you mean it’s for identification, that’s BS. How does the top of my head identify me”?
I asked “Why do you need to be identified? I think you are more identifiable by the hat than you are without it.”
I learned the intended purpose of the policy, but I still do not know the motivation for the policy which prompts the question “why do you need to be identified”? The assertion of “I think you are more identifiable by the hat than you are without it” is a product of considering the efficiency of the purpose of the policy.
I went on providing her an analysis.
Text Three: If they can’t answer your questions it’s because they don’t have a good reason for the policy aside from wanting to condition you to arbitrary authority. If you can, get them to admit they don’t have a good reason for the policy and then comply with it. It’s good to recognize that but it doesn’t serve a good purpose to be defiant because you need to participate in school.
Text Four: You have to understand that most people have very limited critical thinking skills, and this includes teachers and school administrators. They do what they are told without questioning the purpose of it or even if it accomplishes the intended purpose. It’s difficult for them to answer simple questions they haven’t asked. They may become frustrated, and then they wonder what’s wrong with you, why are you being difficult, why don’t you just do what you’re told and reproduce the information you’re given on tests. The issue isn’t something wrong with you, it’s what’s wrong with them because their innate ability to think and question has been drummed out of them and replaced with a mindless authoritarian hierarchy. Which means they do what they’re told and expect others to do as they are told depending on where they rank compared to others.
Text Five: The aim of public education is to produce obedient workers capable of compartmentalized skill that can be applied to some productive end. The hat is more about conditioning you to authority than it is about identification or whatever other reason they fled to after you expose the hole in their explanation. Recognizing it is good enough to obstruct that purpose. Now on the subject of purpose, why do you go to school? You go to school because it is a good place to acquire basic academic skills: reading, writing, science and math. Second for the opportunity to build social skills through interaction with your peers. I’m telling you this because although you may be right as you probably are with the hat, creating an issue out of every BS hat rule harms the purposes of you going to school. This means purpose checks pride.
Text Six: Lastly, when I talk about conditioning to authority it isn’t conscious intent. They are not aware of what they are doing when they are doing it. To them it is the way things are, it is a normalized process, so it isn’t as if they see you and say we need to break her will and turn her into a box making clock puncher like the rest of us. It’s more we have a policy, in life there are rules, and people have to follow the rules. There just isn’t any question about the morality or purpose the rules serve. Don’t feel like they have bad intentions, they just serve bad purposes in keeping with heavily impressed social norms. Social norms held in place by the illusion that what exists in this country and the world over is good, when any interested and objective person should be appalled at what modern normalcy has produced. I’m done. If there is an issue, they can call me too, your mom was complaining she can’t spend so much time distracted by these issues. Have a good day.
The purpose of this story is to demonstrate the cause of short sequencing as this event provides two examples. These texts in addition to the purpose of resolving the interruption in my life and my daughter’s education, were also the product of a moral judgement, recognizing my daughter was being imposed on. I presume many people would disagree that the policy is imposition but based on their exposure to school’s with no hat policies, and not on merit. Naturally efficiency is considered in that equation.
The reason we have rules is because we are freer with them than we are without them. Meaning any rule should prevent a greater imposition than it imposes. There are a number of valid reasons for a no hat policy, but I don’t think identification is one. Even in the climate of mass shootings in schools we live in, or in the event of an abduction at school, a no hat policy doesn’t increase protection against these acts. Even if the school shooter or abductor is lazy and doesn’t research the schools no hat policy, my daughter was in the school for over an hour, and wasn’t stopped by a teacher until second period, meaning it isn’t enforced to the degree where anyone with a hat becomes a suspicious person, which is the presumed purpose of the policy. More importantly, the time my daughter was in the school means she was clearly identifiable as a student to not be stopped prior. Meaning the hat did not make her less identifiable. As she asked, “how am I more identifiable by the top of my head”?
I’ve raised my daughter without using punishment to motivate her to do things. Maybe a few times when she was younger, but we are talking about a literal handful of times in 14 years. I’ve always explained why she should do the thing I want her to do, and if she objects, she’s given the opportunity to state her case. If she is correct, I adopt her point on the matter. The issue I have is they want her to do something but don’t think they need to provide her a satisfactory explanation. She asked, “how does the top of my head identify me”? If a hat causes you to be less identifiable which is the explanation, it is valid to the reason for the rule how the top of her head causes her to be more identifiable, because the hat only covered the top of her head (knit cap, no brim).
Without answering her question, she is expected to comply. The cause and effect processing that produces the question is discouraged because it serves no purpose. Which is why probably 99% of students her age wouldn’t even think of the question. This is an element of conditioning to authority which is common and has a great impact on the intelligence of human beings. For efficiency, people’s thinking is reduced to doing the will of authority figures for the immediate reward or to avoid an immediate punishment. It serves no purpose to think about other elements of the result or dictate, because it has no bearing on the outcome and the child’s immediate purposes.
It begins with the parents who will find it much more efficient to their purposes to provide a reward or impose a punishment than it is to explain to their children why it is in their child’s self-interest to do or not do something. Most parents don’t encourage their children to think and in fact discourage their children from thinking by using their position of authority to render the child’s point void should they attempt to argue, the same as the teacher. Which is why children learn to direct their arguments towards the emotions of their parents rather than their intellect. Begging, crying, nagging, or some effort to create enough of a nuisance for the parent to capitulate, or cause the parent to succumb to sympathy. This is because the child knows reasoning with the parent is ineffective. Parents train their children not to think.
The discouragement of thinking is reinforced by a planet full of people who subscribe to this kind of thinking. Everyone wants people to do what they want them to do and it is much easier to use reward or punishment based on position, than it is to identify a person’s point of self interest in the act.
After parents and religion comes school, work, and a variety of situations where there is little reward for thinking. It’s no wonder that a child’s friends become the group that is the most influential and that he is most interested in, as it is the only group where his thoughts are valid.
The substance of my texts reflects as much. I wanted to reinforce my daughter’s act of thought by telling her she has a valid position. I told her to try to get them to admit it so she could have the sensations of being affirmed correct even though she is going to comply. I wanted her to know she was right but explained to her the purpose of her going to school is of greater value than wearing the hat which is why she should comply. Lastly, I wanted her to understand the teachers didn’t have bad intentions, they just didn’t know what they were doing which produces bad results and purposes.
They are bad people despite not thinking they are doing bad things, because they value things over what is true. They are self deceptive and obstruct communication which harms everyone, and they claim authority over others through the threat of consequence. They think they’re good people because it’s socially reinforced as the dominant human mode of operation, but their result and the purposes of these results are harmful.
Anyone at any point in history who asked the questions I’ve asked could have arrived at these conclusions. My highest level of academic achievement is a GED, but objectivity has led me to fundamental answers about human behavior and human dysfunction. It has given me the ability to look at the smallest detail and what it means in respect to the details around it while never losing focus of what that portion of information means to my understanding of everything else I understand. What I mean is, without the evolution of knowledge, any person could understand the concept of liberty, and the value of truth, and afterwards speculated anything they wanted to about existence and a hereafter, and humanity would have been on a track towards ideal long ago. Instead they deceived and self deceived as it served their interest materially and sensationally, and this is why we have what we have.
The reference to box makers and clock punchers refers to people who operate out of authority-based reasoning.
The teacher is motivated by the satisfaction of tasks associated with teaching as well as earning money. To fulfill these purposes, he or she must comply with and enforce school policy. Policy is enforced to fulfill the teacher’s purposes. The emphasis of efficiency in regard to those purposes causes the teacher to overlook the motivation of the policy and the efficiency of the policy itself in regard to its intended purpose. Because he or she wants to teach for the satisfaction of teaching and money, the teacher neglects thought processes associated with their actions and the policies that motivate her actions.
I am another example. Influenced by the circumstances of driving and thinking (as the latter is an effect of the former) I initially provided her an answer that demonstrated I had a higher value of what I was doing than I did of her situation. In consideration of the setting, if there was a rule, she was going to have to follow it right or wrong because the value of her education was greater than the value of wearing a hat. I thought further and answered her question correctly.
(ADDITION: I use the word value here differently than I typically use it, where I describe the alue of her education and opportunity to interact with her peers being greater than the value of her wearing the hat. I use the word value to describe the feelings produced by an object or objective. In this situation the comparison relies on the conception of value of valued purposes. Where the sensations that will be produced through the facilitation of objectives an education and social interaction will produce, should be greater than the sensation related to wearing the hat which stem from the positive feelings of being confident in the image you are projecting, and once prevented, also the positive feelings of resisting the imposition in feelings of justice. )
Setting is important regarding liberty. When interacting with someone in or with their property it is understood they may impose rules, and a person must either accept those rules or not interact with them in that setting. A public school is an institution that exists by the will of the public, which means the school should only impose rules that are consistent with the general rule of rules, where the imposition prevented is greater than the imposition imposed, and rules that increase the efficiency of teaching. There is no gang problem at the school which would be a valid reason why the children cannot wear hats as it compromises safety. The school claims the reason for the hat policy is identification, if so, how does the top of her head identify her? You have a policy that imposes without preventing any imposition.
Worse still the policy compromises teaching efficiency. The process of educating students is distracted by teachers having to enforce policies that do not serve a good purpose, because they impose without preventing imposition. A second aspect of efficiency is the enforcement of such policies creates a disposition within students that is not conducive to learning. The school tells the student she cannot do something, provides inadequate justification, and then expects the injustice perpetrated against her not to distract from her education?
The main point is a rule you cannot explain that is imposed through authority, conditions children to not think by voiding the results of their thoughts. The value of thought is reduced because the thoughts have no bearing on outcomes. This example is not about the hat but an example of conditioning to authority-based thinking. During our day to day lives it is everywhere, parents, teachers, clergy, bosses, etc. Some of it is necessary to ensure adequate efficiency, but much of it is not, and the consequences are apparent. (despite her issues at school she is an A student with occasional Bs.)
Another example was when she was told at recess to take her headphones off. She asked why she had to take her headphones off and the teacher responded because it’s a rule. She asked why it was rule and the teacher told her all she needed to know is it’s a rule. These are sequences people are trained to operate under: I don’t do something because it is a rule, and if I do it, there is a consequence imposed by some authority. Her mother doesn’t want me to be involved with her school. I don’t feel like it is my place because my presence has been intermittent. I was incarcerated shortly after my daughter was born and missed about the first year of her life. I was with her from about a year and a half until she was about 9. I was gone for about a year and then I was back for a few months, gone for a year with visits, and now I’ve been back for close to a year and I am intent on leaving again.
I don’t see eye to eye with her mother. Her mother, who to some degree knows better, prefers our daughter to be absorbed into the American dream. For her to become a cog in the wheel, to accept authority to improve her circumstances and reach a good balance between entertainment and servitude. For her to have the life reflected in television ads, and sitcoms, for her to be “oblivious to her existence” and the world she lives in. I just hope that her values and understanding are based on substance and not other people’s-imposed preferences, and how she chooses to apply those values and understanding, to what ends, is her choice. I only hope she doesn’t find herself in a situation where life is spent working an unfulfilling job that does little more than suffices her for the day. Her mother and I do not talk much. Our relationship is based on my willingness to help her and her willingness to help me, and how my presence is preferred by my daughter. We talk casually, just not substantively, very friendly, we just have different values producing different interests. Her mother is a wonderful person.
Even though the conditioning of my child to arbitrary authority is not harmful to those ends since she recognizes it, it is harmful in how she feels when she is imposed on. Examples are not limited to these incidents. The other day when I picked her up from school, she was complaining with her friend about a student in her orchestra class. There are two cellists, her friend is one and there is another student who is the other, and she explained that the cello is important because it is part of maintaining tempo, at least this was what I understood from her explanation. The issue which contained multiple examples, reduced to the teacher enabling the student to perform poorly and not participate in the class which has a negative effect on the rest of the students. I told my daughter that her and her friend needed to bring this to the teacher’s attention. The following day she told me her attempt to bring it to the teacher’s attention ended with the teacher stating she wasn’t going to argue with a 14-year old.
For most children it doesn’t matter much, because the modus operandi of the school is the same as at home and other places. They comply without much thought because their points won’t have any bearing on the outcome so why think them? To put it another way, the objective of the mind is a valued purpose, and questioning the dictates of authority figures does not further any purpose, so a mind that has been conditioned to authority operates on laws of to do, or not to do, based on the immediate consequence without much consideration concerning the dictates.