I’ve been thinking about how to teach objectivism to my kids. They are between 12 and 16 yrs old – old enough to have solid language skills, but not so old that they’re firmly stuck in their personal philosophy. They also have a tendency toward mysticism.
The everyday application of objectivism is my goal, more than the theory behind it. Asking them to read a book about it wouldn’t work. It would need to be taught verbally.
Ideas?
I’ve been thinking about how to teach objectivism to my kids. They are between 12 and 16 yrs old – old enough to have solid language skills, but not so old that they’re firmly stuck in their personal philosophy. They also have a tendency toward mysticism.
The everyday application of objectivism is my goal, more than the theory behind it. Asking them to read a book about it wouldn’t work. It would need to be taught verbally.
Ideas?
read essays by lisa vandamme, head of VanDamme academy
also:
objectivistkid.blogspot.com is cute ^^
I’ve been thinking about how to teach objectivism to my kids.
Anthem
The Girl Who Owned a City
Sad to say, but if your kids are tractable enough to be made into Objectivists as teenagers, then they are too stupid to be Objectivists in the first place. I gave my daughter The Fountainhead. She said, “Fuck you. I’m not reading this.” I said to myself, “Good job, Dad!”
I’ve been thinking about how to teach objectivism to my kids. They are between 12 and 16 yrs old – old enough to have solid language skills, but not so old that they’re firmly stuck in their personal philosophy. They also have a tendency toward mysticism.
The everyday application of objectivism is my goal, more than the theory behind it. Asking them to read a book about it wouldn’t work. It would need to be taught verbally.
Ideas?
The simple answer to your question, I think, is don’t teach your kids Objectivism. It’s not just the point that they might rebel against their parents and so reject it. It’s that kids don’t have the necessary background knowledge to understand and evaluate any kind of philosophy, especially 12 year olds. It’s not an issue of intelligence, but of intellectual maturity. The best you can do is provide a rational environment in which they can flourish. Become practiced at explaining your reasons for how you raise them, and encourage them to justify themselves to you rationally. When they’re in their late teens, then if they want to know what books you like, tell them. If you’ve encouraged them to think rationally, then they’ll find Ayn Rand’s books inspiring. But they’ve got to want to read them on their own first, and for the right reasons. And even when they’re fully adults, teaching Objectivism is something best left to professional teachers. The most that many people should expect to to do is to set themselves up as examples or to emulate, morally and logically–and to provide hints about where they got their ideas. I’m not a parent, but this is the type of advice I’ve heard from Objectivists who have parented.
read essays by lisa vandamme, head of VanDamme academy
She has some great ideas on how to teach, using knowledge hierarchies. Wonderful stuff. I didn’t see anything specifically about objectivism, though. Did you have something specific in mind?
Sad to say, but if your kids are tractable enough to be made into Objectivists as teenagers, then they are too stupid to be Objectivists in the first place.
My goal isn’t to make them into objectivists (they have to do that part themselves). My goal is to teach them about objectivism – in particular as a different way of looking at the world compared to mysticism and collectivism, which are the primary world views that most of society preaches and believes.
I gave my daughter The Fountainhead. She said, “Fuck you. I’m not reading this.” I said to myself, “Good job, Dad!”
My kids would have the same response if I gave them a book like that to read. That’s why I think it needs to be done verbally.
The simple answer to your question, I think, is don’t teach your kids Objectivism. It’s not just the point that they might rebel against their parents and so reject it. It’s that kids don’t have the necessary background knowledge to understand and evaluate any kind of philosophy, especially 12 year olds.
And yet kids seem able to understand and evaluate mysticism and collectivism from a very young age. Why is objectivism different?
Anthem
The Girl Who Owned a City
Hermes, I have never heard of the latter before, so I looked it up. The Girl Who Owned a City is a novel by O.T.Nelson for anyone else who doesn’t know either and according to the Wiki:
Nelson has stated that his intent in writing the novel was to translate the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand into terms children could understand.
They also have a tendency toward mysticism.
Do you have any idea where that came from? For example is the other parent religious so would you have to be undermining your spouse? Or is it grand parents? You should not let the false pass as the true, though you do not need to rant against the false. Speak the truth; teach them to use their minds. That will go a long ways. If you want something special, say what you mean without weaseling, and require the same from them. Example – “This mess needs to be cleaned up by noon”. Well, no, the mess has no needs. You mean “You need to clean up this mess by noon, because whatever”. Teaching is most effective by example.
Rational Jenn is a home schooling Objectivist, and her blog has some ideas. some of it is not teaching Objectivism per se, but making the values and virtues of objectivism daily habits that are built into her children. she had a great post on teaching productiveness. Her blog is on my blog’s blogroll. Just click through. (oh, and stop and read a post or two 
)
Oh, and I agree with Athena, objectivistkid is cute and Darius has some really insightful observations.
My wife and I have not yet had kids so I can’t speak from experience. But we have discussed it before. I don’t believe you can teach kids at this age a coherent philosophy, let alone abstract ideas. It is more reasonable to try to “teach” them a sense of life; I think possibly the best way to do this is to provide them with a rational, ordered environment where they realize it is possible to achieve with the use of their mind.
I will likely get heat on here for the following, but I have not yet made up my mind on it. I am inclined toward letting my kids go to church/sun. school with their mother WHEN they are extremely young (4-5 or so). When they become old enough to decide it isn’t for them and they no longer wish to go, then their mother would stop bringing them. Christian thought has two central tenets I consider of value: 1.) Individual moral responsibility, and 2.) Moral absolutism. Everything else is garbage, but I think this can be sorted by the kid as he/she grows. Perhaps there are other ways to help kids “get” these important thoughts at a young age, I just don’t know them. My wife and I are years away from having our first kid, so I have not yet studied the subject extensively. Will do so when it comes closer to the time but in the interim I am open to suggestions.
Moral absolutism.
Which is what, exactly?
Do you have any idea where that came from? For example is the other parent religious so would you have to be undermining your spouse? Or is it grand parents?
Sure. Spouse, grandparents, TV, society in general. It’s not religion, but other forms of mysticism.
Teaching is most effective by example.
That hasn’t been my experience. I’ve found that objectivism is difficult for others to understand, especially for mystics, when viewed from the outside.
It’s interesting to me that many people readily accept the need for church for their kids (even someone in this thread), and yet teaching kids the foundations of objectivism seems to not be necessary or even possible.
I am inclined toward letting my kids go to church/sun. school with their mother WHEN they are extremely young (4-5 or so).
One of the things which start a child on the right path is correct method of cognition (method is much more important than information) and correct criteria of what can be accepted as knowledge. It is a mixed message to allow religion (and thus faith) as an option. It is not either or (and when you are old enough you decide on your own). One is clearly a false method.
How do you teach a child reason - by example. By stressing everyday what is real and never blurring the line between true and false, right and wrong, real and imagined. You do that from day one, consistently, and they will grow up to be rational adults seeing the world as comprehensible.
Become practiced at explaining your reasons for how you raise them, and encourage them to justify themselves to you rationally.
I agree with this. Correct rules and approaches are not arbitrary and a child should understand that. Explaining reasons is crusial - it shows them the method by which you make your decisions. In time they will look for reasons for things in everything they encounter, including their own preferences, and that is exactly what you want. The next step is then to teach them how to evaluate what are the right reasons (and now you are teaching them reality based ethics without them even knowing it).
[it] hasn’t been by experience [that teaching by example is effective]. I’ve found that objectivism is difficult for others to understand, especially for mystics, when viewed from the outside.
I don’t understand why you say this AceNZ. Could it be that you are thinking of teaching some specific terms and inter-relationships, rather than the basics?
To concretize, take Rationality. Isn’t it best taught by example? If a child sees dad – even with his occasional emotional outburst or psychological idiosyncrasy – still manages to get a grip and act rationally most of the time, then the child gets a lesson. In fact, without example, the kid won’t learn it for all the words in the world (until he grows up and thinks things through for himself). One teaches a kid to be rational by being rational. Secondly, one teaches a kid to be rational, by helping them see the principle in some way: for instance, there could be some times when one is explaining one’s actions or evaluations to a kid. It won’t be: “from a rational point of view…”; however, that is the implicit message the kid will get if your reasons are truly rational. Thirdly, one has to expect and encourage the right behavior from the child: i.e. expect and encourage the child to act rationally, keeping in mind that he is a child who is still learning about this.
The same can be said of productiveness, pride, honesty, etc.
Indeed, most parents who are not too religious use some type of “common-sensical” explanations to their kids, telling them to be rational, productive, honest, etc., even though they may not use those terms. As an Objectivist, the advantage one has is that this is not contaminated by all sorts of other gunk.
As a parent, what you will teach your kid will revolve around Ethics, with a rational world-view (Metaphysics and Epistemology) mostly assumed.
If the two parents have significantly different views on a topic, that will definitely cause a problem. If I have to guess, the real differences would not come up in things like rationality (as applied to 95% of life), nor honesty, etc. The likely areas of disagreement would be: God, and altruism vs. selfishness. I think it’s nearly impossible for someone not privy to such a relationship to give any advice about that, except to say: the adults must come to some type of understanding about what the child will be taught. On the question if God, at a minimum, your kid should know that you do not believe in God.
Spouse, grandparents, TV, society in general.
Okay; then why do you let your spouse teach these lessons without challenging them? (That’s the hardest one) I think it’s unforgivable to let grandparents, TV and society get an automatic pass at corrupting children. To put this more emphatically, _ why in the world _ would you abdicate one of your fundamental responsibilities as a parent?! If it’s because of your spouse, I can sort of get how it’s easy to let things slide rather than cause major problems, but now maybe you’re seeing the consequences of short-term thinking (namely knuckling under for temporary spousal harmony).
I’ve found that objectivism is difficult for others to understand, especially for mystics, when viewed from the outside.
I suggest not thinking of Objectivism as an abstract intellectual system, but as an actual way of life. Lectures in theoretical Objectivism and the virtue of integrity are not just hard to understand, they are not credible if delivered with the presumption that they are a prescription for conducting your life, where you yourself can’t actually abide by those principles. If you lecture on the virtue of honesty and yet in your life provide many living examples of unpunished dishonesty, your lectures and reading list won’t have the impact you want. Children are smart enough that they learn and believe principles arrived at inductively (they learn an entire bloody language that way). If Dad has a moral spine and acts according to his spine, the children will learn the virtue of morality by seeing what it actually does for Dad’s life. This is not to say that Dad’s example can’t be undermined if Mom is a moral low-life, and it’s certainly not guaranteed that a child will learn from the parental example, but I’m surprised to see that you think it’s controversial that children learn inductively.
In my view, the single most important thing you can teach children is intellectual independence. They will almost certainly at times believe things that aren’t true. That’s fine. If they understand what it means to think first-handedly, to think logically, such things will sort themselves out over time.
As others have pointed out, it’s totally inappropriate to, for example, try to teach a six year old about Objectivist epistemology. I remember reading something Lisa Van Damme wrote about the inappropriateness of contemporary educators teaching young children that man-made global warming is destroying the planet. The basic problem isn’t that they’re teaching something that isn’t true, but that they’re teaching something the children simply can’t understand in a first-handed manner. To evaluate claims about global effects on the environment, one would need a great deal of prior scientific knowledge; the teachers, in effect, present the conclusion without the facts and logic which lead to it. By doing so, they inculcate devastating cognitive habits and slowly cripple a child’s ability to think for himself.
The same applies to Objectivism. You simply can’t teach young children a philosophical system. If you try, it will harm them. They need more time, more experience, more growth, before it will really mean anything to them. If you teach them to be intellectually ambitious, but also to be intellectually careful - not to draw conclusions they don’t understand, not to accept things they’re told uncritically - you give them the tools to draw their own conclusions about the world. They will develop the confidence to stand up for what they know what is true, and they will be able to correct themselves when it turns out they’re wrong.
If a child manages that, Objectivism will be a cinch when he’s ready.
– SpiralTheorist –
Action over words, is the key principle here. There’s this one kid in my Kung Fu class, who is always breaking etiquette and talking - and I don’t mean to ask how to do a move correctly, I mean just chatting and being an ass. Well fine, if he doesn’t want to train, then we don’t train with him. If someone else doesn’t want to train, they can just stand around and chat with him. There’s a reason our Si-Fu became a master in a year, and yet it’s taken him four years just to Grade 9.
This is just a practical example of depriving someone of victims - it may not correct his behaviour immediately, but when he realises that all those people he was distracting before are progressing faster than him, one would hope he would correct his errors. If he doesn’t - well, he’s off standing in the corner, chatting.
The point is that rationality doesn’t begin with lecturing - it begins with doing. Take care of number one, and you’ve done half the job already. Seeing principles work in action leads to emulation, leads to one asking, with the curiosity of the teenager, “Why am I doing this?” Of course, the self-flagellating teenager will ask that in an outright negative way, whereas the teenager who has found emulating their parent has made them happy, will be more curious as to how they can act like that in principle.
Action over words, is the key principle here.
Yes it is. Even if they don’t grasp the principles yet they get to experience the benefits of living by them.
Most of the guiding I do I try to do it indirectly as much as possible. I think of the traits or virtues I would like my son to develop and then I think of situations or experiences which I could create or put him in that would help him in that process. I ask myself questions: How is true (in contrast to the psudo kind) self esteem aquired? What is necessary psychologically for one to become a first-hander? What kind of environment promotes intellectual independence? How do I nourish his natural curiosity?
I don’t leave it to chance.
I’ve been thinking about how to teach objectivism to my kids. They are between 12 and 16 yrs old – old enough to have solid language skills, but not so old that they’re firmly stuck in their personal philosophy. They also have a tendency toward mysticism.
The everyday application of objectivism is my goal, more than the theory behind it. Asking them to read a book about it wouldn’t work. It would need to be taught verbally.
Ideas?
It’s a very difficult thing to do for the most part, because you can’t force anybody to think a certain way unless they concent to it first, and even then it’s still made by their own volition. I beleive at first that they should be taught what exactly they should not conform to, and when they reach an age were they want to seek an alternative the arbitray gray muck that is Subjectivism, then introduce Objectivism.
So there seems to be general consensus in this thread that the best approach is to teach by example. Actions over words, etc. I think that’s a fine place to start, but it isn’t nearly enough.
I don’t know about you folks, but I don’t spend every hour of every day with my kids. I work. They go to school, spend time with friends, read, watch TV and otherwise interact with the world around them. I like to think that I provide a good example. But I’m not the only example in their lives. The approach that you’re advocating sounds like the one that many parents use when it comes drug abuse or sexual ethics. “Be a good example”. It’s not enough.
I for one to not believe that teenagers are too young to be taught how to think. I believe that it’s something that needs to be taught, just like reading or math. Someone mentioned being clear about what’s real and what’s not. I agree that’s important, but you would be surprised at how many places in a kid’s everyday life those lines are blurred. The distinction, and how to tell the difference, is actually something that my kids can’t do very well, and yet I’ve provided a solid example for them their whole lives, and have confronted non-reality at every opportunity.
I agree with a post above that mentioned Lisa VanDamme’s hierarchical learning approach – and in fact that’s really the core of what I was trying to ask in the OP: what are the core, foundational principles that should be taught first? How can those ideas be effectively communicated? For example, how do you approach the subject of differentiating reality from imagination? A common situation that I see around me is that someone reads a book or an article on the web or sees a documentary, and believes what they’re told; the descriptions are self-consistent, they can imagine how it would work, and it feels right (to make it concrete: something like the meaning behind an out of body or near-death experience). Those beliefs are then reinforced through exposure to related ideas, and after a while, people develop a worldview that’s based on the not-real. They conflate reading or listening about something with thinking and understanding. They eventually assess the world not with rationality but with “gut feelings”.
You’re right about example being a starting point and not at all sufficient. The second thing one has to do is helping the kid see and figure out the right principles. The analogy would be any type of commentary, where a spectator can learn about a game by watching the game, but could learn much more if a good commentator explains what is going on, and also comments on their play. So, yes, kids have to be taught.
I think the best is to provide this “commentary” in relation to things they are encountering. This would be particularly true for the younger kid; the older one is probably ready for a more abstract discussion, but I have no personal experience as a parent of a teenager, so I’m not sure how feasible that is.
Either way, the thing that stood out to me in your previous post was the idea that providing this type of commentary from an Objectivist perspective was more difficult than from a mystical perspective. Wouldn’t it be the opposite? Wouldn’t the Objectivist perspective sound like “common sense”? What would be an example of a stumbling block that makes it difficult?