Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments for Teachers(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments for Teachers
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/05/bertrand-russells-10-commandments-for-teachers.html
9 comments
This reminded me of my high school physics professor who always answered with a "maybe" whenever he felt the student had more insight into something than he did. It looks simplistic, but it was very encouraging as a response, even when we students reached a halt most of the time.
>high school physics professor //
Total aside but I'm curious. Was your high-school class lead by a bona fide professor or are you using the term in the French sense of "teacher"?
Latterly my UK high-school had a doctor (Ph.D) as the head of physics but that was quite rare at the time (and I expect is now).
Leads me on to wonder what sort of high-school class Einstein or Feynman or Hawking or ... might put together; indeed, whether they could do it well.
--
Edit: For some reason I can't reply to you, I was going to guess you were French but it seemed like too long a shot, and it was ... thanks for your answer. Your written English is impeccable.
Total aside but I'm curious. Was your high-school class lead by a bona fide professor or are you using the term in the French sense of "teacher"?
Latterly my UK high-school had a doctor (Ph.D) as the head of physics but that was quite rare at the time (and I expect is now).
Leads me on to wonder what sort of high-school class Einstein or Feynman or Hawking or ... might put together; indeed, whether they could do it well.
--
Edit: For some reason I can't reply to you, I was going to guess you were French but it seemed like too long a shot, and it was ... thanks for your answer. Your written English is impeccable.
Well this is a particular case. On one hand my teacher did have a phd and was a brilliant man. On the other hand I am Moroccan and English is my third language after Arabic and French, both of which tolerate the use of professor to refer to a teacher (Although they have words for both).
I agree, though I wouldn't quite say smarter. It sounds too close to being "better" than someone. I think the general principle is learn to truly listen to someone without judgements, or your ego getting in the way. It's a prerequisite for empathy and compassion.
It is easy to be generous when you are a standard deviation better than the student at some task. It is harder when they are two standard deviations better than you and pat you on the head when you make a mistake.
This is a needless restatement of things Russell said so much more elegantly. Your addition conveys no useful advice and yet manages to be both vague and vacuous, possibly you are a teacher.
I downvoted you. Here is why:
- that last parenthetical 'possibly you are a teacher'. It is clear from his post he is a teacher. That comment is an attempt to lend credence to your assertions by making yourself seem insightful and semi-clairvoyant, by 'guessing' he is a teacher. We all understand he is a teacher. I hate it when people use sneaky fallacies like that.
- You accuse someone of 'not giving useful advice' and 'managing to be vague and vacuous', when you yourself do not offer any useful advice and fail to explain why the statements you are responding to would be 'vague and vacuous', making your own statement 'vague and vacuous'. When harshly criticizing someone, always make sure the criticism doesn't apply to your own argument or yourself. It prevents you from looking like a hypocrite.
- It is completely unclear what you intend to achieve with your criticism. Do you honestly believe someone will respond like 'oh jeez, you're right, how could I be so silly?'. Your post is abrasive and will not achieve its goal. Did it even have a purpose other than 'throwing your thoughts out there'? If not: please stew on them a bit longer next time and explain why you are telling us this.
- In fact, the post you respond to makes a very practical point, much more practical than the more 'vague' general rules Russell provides. It is not a 'needless restatement': it is a much needed explication of what practical behavior these rules lead to. It provides an example of an application of Russell's principles, that makes those principles concrete.
- that last parenthetical 'possibly you are a teacher'. It is clear from his post he is a teacher. That comment is an attempt to lend credence to your assertions by making yourself seem insightful and semi-clairvoyant, by 'guessing' he is a teacher. We all understand he is a teacher. I hate it when people use sneaky fallacies like that.
- You accuse someone of 'not giving useful advice' and 'managing to be vague and vacuous', when you yourself do not offer any useful advice and fail to explain why the statements you are responding to would be 'vague and vacuous', making your own statement 'vague and vacuous'. When harshly criticizing someone, always make sure the criticism doesn't apply to your own argument or yourself. It prevents you from looking like a hypocrite.
- It is completely unclear what you intend to achieve with your criticism. Do you honestly believe someone will respond like 'oh jeez, you're right, how could I be so silly?'. Your post is abrasive and will not achieve its goal. Did it even have a purpose other than 'throwing your thoughts out there'? If not: please stew on them a bit longer next time and explain why you are telling us this.
- In fact, the post you respond to makes a very practical point, much more practical than the more 'vague' general rules Russell provides. It is not a 'needless restatement': it is a much needed explication of what practical behavior these rules lead to. It provides an example of an application of Russell's principles, that makes those principles concrete.
I am indeed a teacher, as I said, and I'll add that the particular aspect of my post that is not explicitly addressed in Russell's commandments is the notion of students being smarter than the teacher. It's a useful lens through which you can look at the problem.
Titling this Russel's "10 commandments for teachers" is very misleading. He included these under the title "A Liberal Decalogue" [ * ] in his autobiography and as far as I can tell there's nothing to suggest that he was addressing them to teachers in particular.
* http://www.panarchy.org/russell/decalogue.1951.html
* http://www.panarchy.org/russell/decalogue.1951.html
He did identify himself as a teacher, saying "The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate..". So he clearly wants to see those commandments followed by teachers.
I think the parent is right. Russell was presenting the ten commandments that he would teach, in constrast to those taught at sunday school.
There's also the legendary section of his C.V.:
Awards and honours
1950: Nobel prize for literature
193?: Pronounced morally unfit to teach at university by the supreme court of New York state
There's also the legendary section of his C.V.:
Awards and honours
1950: Nobel prize for literature
193?: Pronounced morally unfit to teach at university by the supreme court of New York state
What a coincidence, just this morning I read an account of "How Bertrand Russell was prevented from teaching at the College of of the City of New York" [1]. The judge deemed him to be a dangerous influence on students because he would undermine their morals. Therefor he should not be allowed to teach there.
Reading his 10 commandmends affirms for me that he was the wiser man. He taught later at Harvard and received a Nobel Prize for Literature.
[1]: http://www.skeptic.ca/Russell_&_CUNY.pdf
Reading his 10 commandmends affirms for me that he was the wiser man. He taught later at Harvard and received a Nobel Prize for Literature.
[1]: http://www.skeptic.ca/Russell_&_CUNY.pdf
Firstly, reading the 10 Commandments, I didnt feel an instant connection to Teachers, rather a loose set of values for all. So I came back to Hackernews to read the comments, thanks to Michiel throwing the titbit of information about his rejection from New York, I went on to discover a fascinating individual, via wikipedia lead me down the rabbit hole of self-learning of a few other interesting folks who were closely or loosely linked to Bertrand. All this whilst sat on a boat, via 3G. (The world we live in is amazing!)
Take a moment to read his wiki entry and then ponder quietly to yourself, what sort of activities, Bertrand Russell would have championed today.
Take a moment to read his wiki entry and then ponder quietly to yourself, what sort of activities, Bertrand Russell would have championed today.
If you've got the time to spare, even a passing interest in philosophy, and haven't read it already, I can't recommend his History of Western Philosophy highly enough. It's delivered with a tone that really imparts a sense of Russell's enthusiasm both for the subject and for teaching; I've never found 900 pages easier to read or more informative :)
Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" is a wonderful book, but I am told by people more expert in the history of philosophy than I am that it's not terribly accurate. I don't think that's much reason not to read it, but treat knowledge acquired from it with caution.
(Allegedly Anthony Kenny's big single-volume history of philosophy is more accurate and also enjoyable to read. I have it on my shelves but haven't opened it yet, so can't confirm or deny that.)
(Allegedly Anthony Kenny's big single-volume history of philosophy is more accurate and also enjoyable to read. I have it on my shelves but haven't opened it yet, so can't confirm or deny that.)
Yeah, I was advised to bear in mind that it was very much coloured by Russell's take on things.
In some ways, I treat it like a wikipedia article -- a mostly-good overview, which can be used as a guide to look up more rigorous accounts of any particular topics that interest you, but is kinda biased. But it's better written than wikipedia, and I'm more interested in Russell's bias than a random netizen's ;)
In some ways, I treat it like a wikipedia article -- a mostly-good overview, which can be used as a guide to look up more rigorous accounts of any particular topics that interest you, but is kinda biased. But it's better written than wikipedia, and I'm more interested in Russell's bias than a random netizen's ;)
For those who who are curious, he's also a famous logician, mathematician and pacifist in addition to being a philosopher [1].
My first introduction to mathematical logic, set theory and axiomatics [2] was thru his work because he made everything so accessible as a writer and a thinker. What a remarkable mind.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/
My first introduction to mathematical logic, set theory and axiomatics [2] was thru his work because he made everything so accessible as a writer and a thinker. What a remarkable mind.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/
I think he was also into eugenics and forced sterilization.
You appear to oppose those things¹ - I'd certainly be interested in your reasoning. Is/Should reproduction be a basic right of all people that can not be withdrawn (despite many states in the world advocating death sentences).
Is there something wrong generally with wanting to improve the genetic make up of the world's human population - most of us practice a mild [innate] form of eugenics in our mate selection don't we?
Or is it specifics of what Russell advocates that are most clearly wrong in your view?
Probably this is going too far OT ...?
Is there something wrong generally with wanting to improve the genetic make up of the world's human population - most of us practice a mild [innate] form of eugenics in our mate selection don't we?
Or is it specifics of what Russell advocates that are most clearly wrong in your view?
Probably this is going too far OT ...?
Eugenics is mass murder and and forced sterilization is the murder of the unborn. There's plenty of resources and goodwill to make up for unwanted groups by a certain few. You take your mate selection and keep it to yourself.
I haven't looked deeply into Russells reasonings and theories in this area, nor do I want to.
I haven't looked deeply into Russells reasonings and theories in this area, nor do I want to.
Eugenics can be practised without premature death of any person. So I'm afraid you need to do better on that argument.
Sterilisation, eg vasectomy, can be done without any loss of life; so ditto on that argument.
Sterilisation, eg vasectomy, can be done without any loss of life; so ditto on that argument.
Well, let's hope useless eaters like yourself get vasectomies or just euthanize yourselves for the Sake of Humanity, in which you are having great trouble assimilating. That's why you're just a figment of the imagination and should remain that way.
I hope you don't construe my remarks about him as approval of eugenics. Many of his views were indeed antiquated and deserve criticism but I don't believe they invalidate his contributions to other sciences.
No I don't. I was going to add that I find it interesting (actually disturbing) when a person that is leading or has mastered one field of endeavour ventures into another and uses that platform. Often squandered but just shows them to be human. But maybe being on edge and thoughtful is what brought them to mastery in the first place.
Russell was and is an excellent read although what he wrote is now mostly over half-a-century old. Sorry to shamelessly suggest interesting historical reading but I personally found for example "The Problem of China" a wonderful document, elegantly written, that captures Western and Japanese policies towards China and amongst the major powers between the world wars.
This is not a direct quote, but I remember reading the sentiment and it was chilling: "If Japanese and American expansionist policies continue to persist, I would not be surprised to see it lead to a war within this century".
Freely available at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13940
This is not a direct quote, but I remember reading the sentiment and it was chilling: "If Japanese and American expansionist policies continue to persist, I would not be surprised to see it lead to a war within this century".
Freely available at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13940
[deleted]
#6 Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
Who is this guy, The Sphinx? If you do not learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master!
Who is this guy, The Sphinx? If you do not learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master!
This is from the "Brain Pickings weekly" curated newsletter - http://www.brainpickings.org/ (see the "hat tip" in that post). The topics featured in that newsletter would appeal to HNers I think and I recommend it.
A good reminder that scientific thought and "authority" are often at odds. I try to keep this in mind when I hear statements that x% of scientists are purported to "believe" in anthropogenic global warming.
As opposed to looking at all the varieties of evidence which point to (almost certainly largely anthropogenic) global warming?
Always keep in mind that at least some of your students will be smarter than you. Give them what they need and don't treat them as a threat.
They may not yet be as knowledgeable as you (presumably not, at least in your area of expertise), and if you're particularly smart there may not be very many of them, but they'll show up someday and from time to time. This commandment manifests in various ways, from something as simple as a willingness to say "I don't know" on up to giving students an alternate, challenging path through an assignment when they're bored with the default.
IME, the best teachers all (possibly subconsciously) followed this rule, and it was violations of this rule that made the worst teachers so bad.