Education and learning

Boyes directs our attention to a key element in Wood's analysis of the federalist and Jeffersonian period and a central process that shapes emergent and evolutionary orders.

He writes:

p. 471 "Americans knew that the mode of government in any nation will alwyas be moulded by the state of education."...."If Americans were to sustain their republican experiment and remain a free and independent people, they must be taught not just their rights but also their duties as citizens. They must be educated in their moral obligations to the community." This seems to be Wood's view; I do not see it justified by stateements of founders. What is the moral obligation to the community -- isn't it the non-aggression principle?

Adam Smith spent some time *(as did Hayek) on the institution of education and the process of learning. This process of learning and the impact that it has on change in society is of interest - not only to the teachers who make up the ASET book club but to any citizen. I know I sound like a broken record, but the FEE podcasts have been useful to me in better understanding both this process, the responsibility that I personally have as an advocate for liberty and the role that teaching and learning plays in my individual responsibility. Geoffrey Lea of FEE paraphrased Leonard Reed who recommended that lovers of liberty act on their liberty - that is consistently exercise that liberty.

He also made a key point for me in terms of civil discourse and persuasion. Lea is an Aristotlean and he asserts that there are 2 ways to argue or persuade - the first is to inform (logos) that is present the facts or information and the audience will use that information to make an informed decision. An example might be that if you live in New Orleans and the weatherman indicates that there is a Grade 5 Hurricane offshore and it is headed for your city - you might take action. Lea said that in terms of advocating liberty and responsibility this type of persuasion will not be very effective.

The second is to advocate a change in values. The example he presents is that of egalitarianism v liberty. For one who values equal outcomes there is very little that "fact" or "information" will accomplish in terms of change. Values are deeply held and only marginally formed by these types of external stimuli. So, what arethe options? Douglass North and others argue that these values, he calls them informal institutions and includes norms, conventions and morals, emerge and evolve incrementally and very slowly over time.

So, our interactions our efforts to teach and/or persuade must take a very long term perspective and perhaps our responsibility as lovers of liberty and responsibility is to follow Leonard Reed's injunction to act on our liberty.

North writes:

Herbert Simon has stated the issues succinctly:

If… we accept the proposition that both the knowledge and the computational power of the decisionmaker are severely limited, then we must distinguish between the real world and the actor's perception of it and reasoning about it. . . . Our theory must include not only the reasoning processes but also the processes that generated the actor's subjective representation of the decision problem, his or her frame. (Simon, 1986, pp. S210-11)

North's reference to Simon is instructive - reality appears to be what we believe it to be, not what is empirical. Thus the creationist belief trumps Darwin and civil interactions with believers must recognize the role of perception and belief and the disconnect between these informal norms and empirical measurements. So, a belief in equal outcomes is a perception and civil efforts to argue that this will reduce current and future growth, standards of living, opportunities and wealth are likely to have no positive impact.

North goes on:

The analytical framework we must build, must originate in an understanding of how human learning takes place. We have a way to go before we can construct such a theory but cognitive science has made immense strides in recent years - enough strides to suggest a tentative approach that can help us understand decision making under uncertainty.

Learning entails developing a structure by which to interpret the varied signals received by the senses.

I like the fact that North articulates our human limitations. We do not understand how learning takes place and I think that this lack of understanding is on point in understanding Boyes and my concern about a state monopoly on education. Adam Smith argues, like Wood, that there are strong public good reasons to have the government provide schooling. Our experience with choice here in Arizona, the work of Milton Friedman and an application of the non aggression principle provide the grounds for a reasonable and civil debate on this topic.

North points out the complexity of learning.

The initial architecture of the structure is genetic but the subsequent scaffolding is a result of the experiences of the individual. The experiences can be classified into two kinds - those from the physical environment and those from the socio-cultural linguistic environment.

We just don't know if these are the only two factors but it is clear that measures of intelligence suggest biological differences - Vernon Smith, Douglass North, Eleanor Ostrom all have higher genetically based intelligence than . . . Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Juan Williams or Rush Limbaugh.

But, the cultural and social environment also plays a key role and while I would not want to make this argument, one might argue that those endowed with less genetic intelligence might well have more overall intelligence due to these cultural factors.

The point is, learning is so complex that it seems to be the textbook example of a process to be addressed by the spontaneous order.

Boyes goes on to offer a warning (the unintended consequence) of state mandated schooling.


p. 473 "Most of the educational reformers in these years were less interested in releasing the talents of individuals than, as Benjamin Rush put it, in rendering 'the mass of the people more homogeneous' in order 'fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.'" Sounds like brainwashing to me. Sounds like socialism as well as Mao, Stalin, and Hitler youth training organizations.

More than brainwashing I fear a loss of individuality and the evolution of generations lacking the ability to critically consider important questions such as power v liberty and secuity v freedom. These big questions demand a reasoned, civil and thoughtful debate that actively considers the alternative perspectives that are inherent in big issues.

Russ Roberts offers a model of this type of civil discourse in his podcast with Alan Wolfe. They have alternative perspectives on the role of the state and yet their exchange is critical, thoughtful, deep and always civil. Roberts inspires by modeling the civil discourse that is necessary, to my view, for a long term impact through the informal institutional framework that North asserts trumps formal institutions.