Hacker News Reader

Comment by lowkey_ | Hacker News Reader

> it teaches students how to think critically

Most colleges have done the opposite in recent years. They provide echo-chambers for emotionally-fueled pseudoscience.

I've seen this while spending time at Boston University, Harvard, Brown, and Columbia. It's frightening how little people are able to think or question anything once they've gone through the college system. They become frightened by and angry at truths that don't align with the narrative they've been taught.

I've spoken to dozens of people who've gone through the wringer and come out the other side realizing how detrimental college was to themselves and their peers intellectually.

View on HN

Please elaborate.. Did these people have world views that they didn't wish to have challenged and feel it was detrimental to challenge themselves? Or were they actually taught something detrimental?

What is the nature of this pseudo-science?

They were taught, through teachers but especially through the peer community, that there's an established, unarguable set of world views that shouldn't be questioned or challenged, and the scope of that set only grows larger.

I believe it really stems from a belief that they are collectively special — that they're wiser, more moral, and more 'perfect' than their ancestors, their less-educated fellow citizens, and so on. They encourage people to become 'educated' on issues that they themselves aren't particularly educated in, aside from reading Instagram graphics. They seek to 'cancel' people who present other world views.

While most people I know have been through all that and eventually come to a place of humility after college, easily half of the students never did. They continue on, unfazed, with a radical belief in their own moral superiority.

I'm sorry for the length and vagueness of this — it's really incredibly hard to describe as it's so pervasive throughout everything, and generally it's something people only understand after going through the system. You've got me thinking of how to articulate it better!

You're gonna have to cite some kind of example of what you believe pseudo-science is if you're saying critical thinking was somehow detrimental to someone intellectually. That's actually a hilarious feedback loop of a statement, considering they decided to attend a university. I assume it wasn't to study the art of plumbing?

> You're gonna have to cite some kind of example of what you believe pseudo-science is if you're saying critical thinking was somehow detrimental to someone intellectually.

I said that colleges are teaching the opposite of critical thinking, not that critical thinking was detrimental intellectually.

> considering they decided to attend a university.

They attended university because almost all came from an upper-middle-class background where there is no viable alternative according to their families. If you think they decided to attend university, you're speaking of different types of people — the only decision for them is which college to attend.

What departments is this happening under? A lot of people (probably most people) who go to college just learn about some technical subjects and maybe read a couple classic books in gen ed courses. Politics happens on campus, but largely among students and not in classrooms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com