Homeschooling + Polyphasic sleep (or modafinil)

<p>"Nonetheless, peer influence is psychological coercion."</p>

<p>I never denied this (or, I never meant to). But, I don't think that you're considering that there's an equally potent counter-argument. In your descriptions, young and intelligent children are given the option of becoming homeschooled and beginning a vigorous study routine, aided by polyphasic sleep. At such a young age, authority figures such as parents or teachers have the most influence (the role of 'friends' and 'peers' in influencing one's thoughts usually evolves at a later age). Therefore, when parents expose their child "to the wonders of polyphasic sleep by telling them what it's all about," they are really psychologically coercing the child into starting such a regimen.
I'll draw a parallel between the peer coercion that you described, and the situation that I just addressed. When a peer "exposes you to the wonders of pot by telling them what it's all about," you're -really- being exposed to peer pressure, right? Well, the same fundamental idea applies to your situation as well. I think that it's rather ignorant to have double standards like you do... when we don't want to study constantly it's because we have been influenced far too much by peers, but when we are led (and essentially forced) into a life devoted entirely TO studying, no psychological coercion is taking place? ...I don't think so.</p>

<p>Polyphasic sleeping is not safe for people who are still growing. They need as much sleep as possible to grow.</p>

<p>Whatever happened to having a life? There are other reasons to go to school besides learning. Part of the experience is learning to socialize with others.</p>

<p>Here's another disadvantage:</p>

<p>GRAVITY.</p>

<p>If your body is horizontal for 22 hours as opossed to 16 a day, we will all age sooner. And agining gets more TV time than physics or time efficiency.</p>

<p>Boys would have to sacrifice viewing perky busts... on neveryone besides their 12 year old sister. Ahem.</p>

<p>/\ i think you mean vertical....</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, most people who choose such a path are not going to voluntarily stay in their rooms and study all day. But out of all of the people who choose such a path, perhaps a few of them will (like Sophie Germain) voluntarily stay in their rooms and study all day, and be fine with it. Few people will choose such a pursuit.

[/quote]

If it were possible to locate such people early enough and use them for the advancement of science, then they would have no social skills or any skills really, apart from being able to analyze. Hence, the fluid intelligence will be converted to crystal intelligence and the subject would be only a very advanced computer with no ability to process the data that he has created.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, the same fundamental idea applies to your situation as well. I think that it's rather ignorant to have double standards like you do... when we don't want to study constantly it's because we have been influenced far too much by peers, but when we are led (and essentially forced) into a life devoted entirely TO studying, no psychological coercion is taking place? ...I don't think so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, you provide an interesting rebuttal.</p>

<p>In that, it's impossible to quantitatively compare which student would face the greater amount of coercion. Indeed, all environmental influences are coercive in one way or another.</p>

<p>However, my original argument was as follows:</p>

<p>"There could be many students who are exposed to homeschooling and the wonders of polyphasic sleep/modafinil. Now, perhaps it's the case that most of those students don't indeed want to study all day. They still have the choice to study as much as possible, but most of them will not elect to do so. Of course though, since this system is a bottom-up self-organizational system, the parents have a lot of freedom in directing the activities of their children. Some of the parents will be kind, others will coerce their children (psychologically) to study with all of the spare time they have.</p>

<p>So as to the first concern, homeschooling, I think it's the case that some children will have to go through more psychological coercion, whereas other children will not go through this psychological concern, depending on whether the children have substantial external peer groups or not (homeschoolers may fit into particular peer groups - just peer groups that are external to school). Most parents of homeschoolers do have more influence over their children, but some of the parents are liberal enough to let the children decide their own education for themselves (provided that the children are well-guided).
Second question is this - will cutting into the sleep time of children produce less social freedom than not cutting into the sleep time of children?</p>

<p>There are some indirect influences. People tend to compare themselves to the mean of the social group that they belong to. Now, when the sleep time of children is cut into, and people become homeschooled, the standards for such children may get higher. But on the other hand, the children may also be expected to play for more hours each day. It could go either way.</p>

<p>So the question is, does this system allow any more social freedom than the type of education that existed before the institutionalization of mass education? </p>

<p>Hmm. Now I'll have to say that it's really difficult to say. Notwithstanding this, what if a liberal parent tells the child to discover his own interests for himself, and to take modafinil/do polyphasic if the child wants to? (Or what if the parent say, only provides vegetarian meals for the child? Is that coercion?).</p>

<p>There are psychological coercive forces w.r.t lifestyle choices, and psychological coercive forces w.r.t attitudes, beliefs, and activities. The former type of psychological coercive force may include vegetarianism and polyphasic sleep, and that sort of coercive force is independent of the second type of coercive force (the one that really restricts social freedom).</p>

<p>More time in a day though = more freedom to do what you want. Again, I'm saying that the children can have the freedom to do what they want - some of them will find math interesting (of course, having certain books in the library is also some sort of environmental coercive force)</p>

<p>Now, of course, we're assuming a change in parental attitudes. The question is, how likely is the child to embrace polyphasic sleep? It depends. Children who play video games may be the types who would most look forward to polyphasic sleep/modafinil. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Polyphasic sleeping is not safe for people who are still growing. They need as much sleep as possible to grow.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While your argument is understandable, we still haven't compared the outcomes of children on polyphasic sleep/modafinil vs. children without polyphasic sleep/modafinil. It is true, though, that developing brains have different needs than full-grown teenage brains (brain stops growing at age 14)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whatever happened to having a life? There are other reasons to go to school besides learning. Part of the experience is learning to socialize with others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your argument is cliched.</p>

<p>(a) public education is a very recent 1800s invention. People had social lives before public education. This argument betrays a lack of imagination about the number of other opportunities that children can pursue
(b) most homeschoolers do engage in a wide variety of extra-curricular activities. Some may not, and it's their own choice (were I homeschooled, I would have none - but I've always had my Internet friends)</p>

<p>So what would the student raised in the ideal free society be exposed to?</p>

<p>He would have access to as much information as he wants to, and he should develop a knowledge of his talents and weaknesses, as well as his real interests and his non-real interests. He should be able to distinguish the reliable/unreliable information from the relevant/irrelevant information. In that, he must be exposed to many different fields, preferably on his own initiative. </p>

<p>More time allows exposure to more subjects. More time can be given by (a) eliminating schooling and (b) polyphasic sleep/modafinil.</p>

<p>School does not do an adequate job of this. At all. It provides a controlled environment, with doses of the same archaic subjects year after year. It assumes that everyone goes through with the same learning style. </p>

<p>It is true that some parents may be particularly mean to their children. But I honestly do not think that this should apply to most parents. Parents, unlike schools, usually love their children. They know what's best for their children.</p>

<p>...well...not always...the liberal parents do at least, but few parents are liberal (note, I'm not talking about politically liberal - I'm more talking about liberal attitudes towards learning).</p>

<p>I at first thought that this is an extremely radical idea (and I still won't try it myself, just because I have a pretty laid-back philosophy), but then I realized that many of the best thinkers in this world have done a lot of radical things. I mean just look at this: <a href="http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html&lt;/a> (even Feynman is on there.) So even though I am not supporting the idea of taking modafinil and other drugs, I am not opposed to it either, since the meaning of life for everyone is different, and one must be tolerant. Imagine Edward Witten stoned though, now I would pay to see that!</p>

<p>
[quote]
I mean just look at this: <a href="http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html&lt;/a> (even Feynman is on there.) So even though I am not supporting the idea of taking modafinil and other drugs, I am not opposed to it either, since the meaning of life for everyone is different, and one must be tolerant. Imagine Edward Witten stoned though, now I would pay to see that!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LoL, did you find that link on CC? I posted it a while ago, but the thread seems to be...deleted? =/</p>

<p>No, I actually just googled "stoned scientists," and this was the first website that came up. So I wouldn't be surprised if many others have already seen it, since it was popular enough to be the first result.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
While your argument is understandable, we still haven't compared the outcomes of children on polyphasic sleep/modafinil vs. children without polyphasic sleep/modafinil. It is true, though, that developing brains have different needs than full-grown teenage brains (brain stops growing at age 14)

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, new research shows that the brain doesn't stop growing until you are in your early twenties. In that case, it is important that you still get plenty of sleep throughout your teen years.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Actually, new research shows that the brain doesn't stop growing until you are in your early twenties. In that case, it is important that you still get plenty of sleep throughout your teen years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The size of your brain stops growing at age ~14. The frontal lobes continue to develop until the early 20s. But how different? This is the focus of a lot of psychological research now (adulthood in many other cultures begins at puberty). Western societies have a habit of prolonging adolescence.</p>

<p>Again, we still haven't compared the outcomes of children on polyphasic sleep/modafinil vs. children without polyphasic sleep/modafinil. So it would be important to measure the behavioral outcomes of children who had less than 8 hours of sleep/day, either due to health problems or an intrinsic low desire to sleep.</p>

<p>The question is - are there stages in a child's sleep cycle that are important and missed through the application of either polyphasic sleep or modafinil? As for that, it depends on (a) neurological and (b) behavioral evidence. (a) of course is more humane than (b). Hopefully, neuroscience research will accelerate in coming years.</p>

<p>==
Speaking of "trying to discover one's own talents and interests"...
You can only discover your interests and learning style if you’re allowed to be in an open environment, not an enclosed one. People are told to be “open and flexible” towards potential academic interests in college (instead of in high school). Yeah, “open and flexible” when time is limited, the pressure is mounting, and when everything is recorded for the future. There are sociology studies on universities that clearly illustrate that people who choose a major early on do better on GPA-wise indicators (and on other indicators of success) than people who decide to be “open and flexible” for their initial years of college. (I read them in 2005; I have to find them again). </p>

<p>That being said, people are often discouraged from learning outside of school as long as their grades are fine (this is based on anecdotal evidence, but from experience, teachers aren't particularly enthusiastic in recommending outside resources).</p>