Can We Trust Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)?

3 comments

1. If it were me i’d trust say 1 in 10.000 psychologists in europe due to the way 9.999 will have taken the type of fast tracked means to accreditation that a culturally marxist body in the public sector customised for in under 12 months & where the uni’s seem happy to release the certs for some reason. I have cause to speak with many & none of them understand what i’d consider to be fundamental concepts, but they are great at everything this site describes.

   When any arrive here outraged with the marxism, there is hopefully fair reason to wonder if they might know useful stuff.

   Reply

2. Dear James

   All the probabilities indicate something more subtle i would say. You see all they need to do is have advantaged and disadvantaged versions of SEL. What you are suggesting is that freedom from say cognitive dissonance equates to marxism. It doesn’t & how could it ?. The same is likely to apply to any emotional intelligence or ‘whole brain’ ( to be metacognitive shall mean looking at compartmentalisation matters ). But no matter. In order to take the most heuristic course to screw the proletariat & advantage the privileged you’d have the same central message only to deliver a cognitive dissonance boosting version to the lower class. So yes i would agree that the whole thing is as sinister as you state it is. Its just that in order to ruin the lives of the targeted humans then there only needs to be a polarity factor with the dissonance. As a researcher i have long known this and circulated a long email campaign describing how cognitive dissonance was the central core the inversion to schools around London.

   With respect i feel you are on the wrong track and taking a very long route compared to what they are doing. Hiding in plain sight is the way a young high society student can be shown exactly the same core elements, but receive a separate dissonance scaling .

   So i would say that the trickery is even MORE brassed necked than you are suggesting if anything. It looks to me as if they intend to use the sheer economy of one central message for all using elements that could cause good useful intelligent students across the board if they’d let them all be. Naturally they don’t, and so the privilege will be dealt with by the cognitive dissonance potentiometer. So that will be altered by the use of linguistics that cause people to take a certain attitude that disadvantage & dissonances they ability to avoid the conditioned learning and social engineering.

   Its all that is needed James.

   You see certainly in the UK the worm has turned big time, and though there is a largely silent majority, its a m,majority that doesn’t flow with the plot & the gov here knows it. What i think is a strong possibility is that the social engineers are aware of this, and might have decided to go with the cognitive dissonance tweak as stealth. If so what that means is fairly obvious. Extra insurance / sneaking up more whatever – it could be they decoded that a logical cover story on public show, combined with structurally dissonanced linguistics actually in the schools is where its at.

   But you seem determined that ‘Transformative’ – ‘Critical’ -‘Emotional’ blah blah blah are the devil themselves. That won;t help this cause at all its entirely illogical. For instance a transformation has to be designed to be negative due to the way it could have been designed to be positive.

   These things are either going to cause good education or bad according to the specific design. & just latching onto words is total nonsense.

   But yes cultural marxism got this far because they’ve been exploiting psychological loopholes via cognitive dissonance by engineering the propaganda so that people dissonance over to what they want them to – absolutely right. But you can do that with an advantaged central message. We have a school regulator called OFSTED in the UK. I have told then many times now ( since 2008 ) that a wholesome learning menu in schools (the explicit) combined with the implicit pudding kids are eating is toxic.

   The other thing is that these parts about Hegel & Freires whole brain are pretty meaningless as a guide these days. The thing is they were both confused themselves as to what was the right way to screw with young minds, and those remarks alluding to conscious & unconscious only help todays counter argument really James. Hidden in there is a huge number of reasons that Freud et al are poisonous to cultural marxism. Lacan has to be understood as the person who first hid that by pretending to review freud, but rewriting a long misquote that got him out of the way so that binaries could begin to be fused together for postmodernist thinking.

   You have a deep main flaw in running down psychologists sociologists phenomenologists and neuroscience that borders slightly on being sociopathic i mean in the nicest possible way given you are an ace man on this stuff. My area is actually cognitive neuroscience, i just thought ‘Sociologist’ would be ‘social’.

   Perhaps consider a slight rethink James – all of those terms need to be left standing or they’ll use ND as a place to monitor when their next bits of manipulation gained your attention & you’ve got nuts in podcasts. The way you are going they’ll see a way to get most words and terms ‘abolished’ as discredited marxist words & then it’ll only cause harm to people who write specific papers against marxism.

   But as i say – all they need to do is state X on top and just adjust the cognitive dissonance ( how the narratives affect it ) according to how under privileged level the learning is supposed to be. You’ve got huge arrays of dancing girls going on.

   The other big reason is the manipulation of Ai ofc – the emergence of which is arguably the entire one.

   Reply

3. Can we trust psychologists (or their allies) about anything?

   I could describe my training in Scientology as social-emotional learning.

   You could describe Transactional Analysis as a social-emotional theory of human behavior.

   I know that when I was in high school I wanted more data about the social-emotional aspects of human life. I am glad I didn’t get this because it would have been very off-base stuff written by psychologists or sociologists.

   James is correct about NPR and PBS. But he’s not correct (to the extent that he recommends this) that all we need to do is get rid of this “crazy” ideology of SEL, CRT, etc.

   One of my problems with SEL is that it is also the name of a company I used to work for. I don’t like crossing abbreviations.

   But to be more serious, the current brand of SEL is embroiled in questionable psychology about questionable theories of learning. I don’t agree with all the traditional theories of learning, either. That’s why I support Study Tech. But they worked better than SEL is, so if that’s the best we can expect, then let’s go for NO MORE SEL.

   Reply