Subjugating the Subjective Factor Via Public Policy Cloaking Upravleniye–Another Useful Term

In his book The Flight from Truth, Jean-Francois Revel noted that most people are indifferent to knowledge. It appears that the so-called ‘conservative’ public policy think tanks have been relying on that truism in constructing their narratives about what is actually going on in education. Only “a tiny minority of human beings,” he wrote, are willing “humbly to explore reality and to expose ourselves to unknown information.” All these redefinitions pushed by public policy entities like Freedom, School Choice, Liberty, Limited Government, Standards, etc. all seem to rely on the truth that “the ideas that interest us most are not new ideas, they are ideas we are accustomed to.” We believe we know what all these terms mean and do not recognize they have become tools of a new political ideology.

Revel pointed out that a young Latin scholar, Georg Friedrich Grotefend, achieved the ability to decipher the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis. The scholars in Germany were apathetic to the news this 2000 year old secret had been unlocked by someone Not of Their Set of Insiders. There was Henry C. Rawlinson, “an amateur researcher who finally succeeded in deciphering Mesopotamian script,” despite a background in military service for the East India Tea Company. Academic Hellenists also did not welcome the twentieth century’s cracking of the so-called ‘linear B’ script of Crete by an architect. Revel noted that all three men: “even though their main activities did not make them part of the university world, were by no means dilettantes. They simply lacked academic degrees. Well prepared for the tasks they tackled, they had personally undertaken serious and even more exhaustive studies than those of the professionals of their discipline.”

Needless to say I can relate to all three men and even more to this follow-up statement that “If their cases merit attention, it is because an amateur, by definition, is not backed by any power, by any network of alliances and friendships in the social milieu of the scientists and the university bureaucracy.” Now if Revel were still alive and in the US instead of France, he would obviously now need to add public policy think tanks and especially those tied to the Atlas Network to his list of what it takes to get recognized. I thought about Revel this past week when this paper came out by two researchers determined to make their university degrees front and center. http://www.moagainstcommoncore.com/Patience,Privacy,Power,Politics&PensionsBehindESSA_4JRedits.pdf I wouldn’t say the report is wrong so much as irrelevant to the true purpose of ESSA.

The Russian word upravleniye does not have an “entirely satisfactory one-word translation” in English. It follows my mention of ESSA because the word essentially means steering or control of society, the economy, and the people themselves down to the so-called necessary ‘subjective factor’ of human psychology. It seeks to regulate likely activities and the scale of values that motivate and guide likely behavior. The 1976 book from the last post mentioned a 1971 Russian book The Scientific Management of Society that was almost instantaneously translated into English. Having covered a 1976 book by Turchenko in my Credentialed to Destroy, I recognized what such an immediate translation meant. The book arrived Saturday and, just as I feared, it is also the blueprint for ‘steering’ Western countries and their citizens, down to the level of their minds and personalities.

ESSA, and its companion legislation WIOA, are the statutory enactments of a comparable scheme for the Scientific Management of Society using data. It’s what the Open Data Initiatives being pursued all over the world (President Obama’s first Executive Order on the day of his inauguration in 2009) are also about. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/circumscribing-knowledgepart-2-of-imposing-mindsets-to-fit-a-new-political-philosophy/ gets at that as well as covering the intentions of the same Boulding we covered in the last post. It is vitally important for us to understand that in order to treat cities, society, the economy, or other aggregates of people as ‘systems:’

“not only are man’s production activities necessarily subject to control, to regulation, but so is his social behaviour.

As for man’s intellectual activities, they, too, are organized and controlled by society, which moulds its members’ thinking in its own image.”

Clearly the effect of controlling values, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and any other driver of behavior is not news to me. I wrote a book laying precisely that out. What is so unnerving is how closely the 1971 vision fits with what the public policy think tanks are pushing politicians to enact at every level of society today. Let me relate just a few of my personal experiences with think tank deceit so we can appreciate the true impact of what we are dealing with. I thought about it recently as that public policy major and fan of ‘data-driven decision-making’ by governments, House Speaker Paul Ryan, was lecturing Americans and Trump about ‘violence having no place in a campaign,’ while misportraying what was actually said. Ryan immediately made some comment about the rhetoric being a distraction from Republicans pursuing ‘their Agenda.’ He sounded precisely like someone who regards all of us as the Governed and himself as a ruler.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the consistent term in English used in that 1971 book for the people in a society that was scientifically managed by governments at all levels was ‘the Governed.’ It turned out to be a necessary component of the shift from capitalism to socialism and finally to communism. Another odd moment for me recently was listening to ‘conservative’ think tank employees insisting that a Hillary Presidency would be preferable to a Trump Presidency and looking at the attendees (especially from the tech companies) at the AEI Sea Island event. Is Trump the wildcard who might not be on board for this planned steering process of Upravleniye and that’s why he must be stopped? Was that why Jeb was the preferred candidate for 2016?

Last week I attended a breakfast called “At the Intersection of Education & Aging” that featured Dr Matthew Ladner, of the education-focused think tank and Atlas member, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, that Jeb Bush created in 2008. The presentation hyped the dangers to the state budget from an aging population if the state did not adopt the recommended education changes. Now I have to admit I went partly to hear Dr Ladner who had once responded to my point on Jay Greene’s blog that it was important to actually read a school or district’s charter and not simply to assume that the language was about academic quality. Dr Ladner commented back with a drawing of someone wearing a Tin Foil hat. I am a lawyer. Charters are legal documents intended to bind people to a vision they might not appreciate and when I point out that factual concern, Dr Ladner’s response was that I must be a kook. No interest in facts.

Likewise, the recommendations being pushed for K-12 education actually add up to Mind Arson given my knowledge of how they work as an avid amateur researcher with neither an education nor a political science degree like him. The legislators present at the breakfast would not know that, however. They were told x is a problem and y was the solution and that is what they will enact. The whole purpose of the public policy think tanks appears to be to control the narrative while politicians, blindly or not, adopt statutes that fit with all the details laid out in The Scientific Management of Society for the desired steering of people, places, and things.

Is that why Jeb created FEE two years after he began the Bipartisan, supposedly ‘state-led’ process, that just happens to use K-12 education to impose “a programme for standardizing men’s behaviour”? The Atlas Network needed an affiliate at that precise time that would focus on the crucial Subjective Factor needed for social control under the old Soviet-created blueprints?  In the last post I mentioned Boulding’s 5th grade Systems Analysis curriculum created in 1973 that “paves the way both for tighter scientific analysis of human and social behavior and for important moves in the direction of unified science.” Doesn’t that sound like Boulding and the Social Science Education Consortium sought to use the classroom in the US to also lay the groundwork for the Scientific Management of Society?

If anyone feels the natural desire to be apathetic to this new information, remember that we now know that in 1976 another well-connected think tank, the Aspen Institute, pushed interdependence going forward and systems thinking. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/pivoting-from-the-joy-of-the-us-bicentennial-to-the-planetary-bargain-dictate-yet-another-lost-invite-so-long-ago/  If planning and regulation are desired how useful is it to create a belief in malleable children’s minds that a “system is composed of two or more interacting parts.” Well, that pretty much covers most things that exist in reality. Now Boulding wanted young minds examining if these omnipresent ‘systems’ were “goal oriented or non-goal oriented; that is, there are systems that act in order to fulfill certain objectives, while others exist without any particular purpose or goal.”

A business that wanted to make a profit would be a ‘purposeful system’ then and a pond was the given example of parts that interact but “they do not interact together to achieve a common goal or purpose.” Now getting students to begin to analyze the world like this does a number of useful things for anyone wanting to encourage collectivism and social planning as a new norm. It focuses attention on dialectical processes so the student sees adaptation and change as normal and desirable. It creates the belief that people working together in any organization are not supposed to retain differing purposes or goals. By focusing the student on seeing a “city, for example, is not itself a goal-oriented supersystem,” the students are primed to believe that politicians will need to adopt goals on their behalf.

To do that, of course, politicians will not have direct knowledge and will need to rely on public policy think tank employees to tell them what the goals should be and how to best enact them. See why WIOA requires systems thinking in all students to be workforce ready? If Upravleniye needs an alliance of government employees and non-governmental actors to push the vision of Scientific management of Society as the 1971 book said, don’t we now have the rationale for the sudden proliferation of public policy think tanks starting in the 1980s and in earnest since 1990? Telling teachers to raise the question with students of “what must the system ‘know’ if it wants to reach its goals effectively?” prepares students to believe that society and an economy can be successfully managed and should be.

Telling them that people are poor because they ‘lack power’ and that “to bring about the desired result, the poor must communicate to the candidate that they are a bloc and that they have particular wants” encourages students to come to believe that all social and personal problems are solvable via political processes. Laying out classroom activities so that students will ‘relate system concepts’ directly to their daily lives really explains why people seem to have changed so much in what they can do and what they expect. It wasn’t accidental cultural change. With WIOA, ESSA, and Open Data Initiatives, we are all at risk of being governed in the sense sought by Soviet totalitarians unless we recognize how all these elements function together.

These false narratives pushed in the name of ‘public policy’ have a common direction and it was laid out in 1971, originally in Russian. Please do not continue to fall for the conflicts of interest surrounding these think tanks and what they or their employees push.

Better tell elected pols at all levels too where the phrase ‘the Governed’ really comes from as well.

And it is not Our Founding Fathers being quoted.

Triggers of Action: Carving the Noetic Keels Needed for Politics to Steer Society and People

Serendipity has always been one of my favorite words. I used to tell my children that a great vocabulary word has a sentence full of meaning in a single word. Several weeks ago I was out of town and catching up on emails when an investment newsletter just happened to use the following quote to make a point:

“A world of unseen dictatorship is conceivable, still using the forms of democratic government.”–Kenneth Boulding, University of Michigan

Yes, that is a troubling quote, but I recognized the name as being the professor I had cited in my book Credentialed to Destroy. He was behind the push that began in the 1970s to force ‘systems thinking’ into the classrooms. The quote was credited to a 1957 bestseller I had never heard of called The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard. Getting that book zoomed to the top of my To Do list even before I knew that the quote introduced a section of the book called “Persuading Us as Citizens.” It covered how the motivational research the PR and marketing firms were using to sell products and services had been introduced into politics in order to “influence the state of our mind and to channel our behavior as citizens.”

What was then at least understood by its dispensers as ‘depth psychology,’ and controversial enough to drive a bestselling tell-all explaining it, is precisely what is now known as Whole Child Education and Deep Learning. It must be used by teachers and principals, who may never have encountered anyone explaining the true background of these practices and techniques. Why? To be deemed Effective. This is why I created the term Inadvertent Change Agent in my book. It is also tied to what the new K-12 federal legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), mandates as the means of establishing ‘success’.

“Forced ideological homogenization” and “equitable economic development” have long been regarded as necessary components of an attempt by systems thinkers to reorganize society and individuals and redefine what constitutes ‘self-reliance.’ I am really getting tired of all these non-asterisked redefinitions, aren’t you? There was a February 1976 annual meeting of Boulding’s General Systems Research Group followed the next day by a meeting at Harvard of virtually every group we have ever covered on this blog or in the book including representatives from the Club of Rome and the World Order Models Project. I located the minutes of the meetings in a book which was kind enough to tell us this:

“in order to carry out the program proposed by the model, one really has to carry out very deep structural and attitudinal changes. This is why we say that the main problem is a sociopolitical, not a material, resource kind of problem, in the sense that there are paths and strategies which can take us to the satisfaction of basic needs. But the main problem remains of a sociopolitical nature.”

Good thing, huh, that systems thinkers specialize in a remaking of education and the creation of think tanks and a public policy network that will cause politicians to believe that they need to mandate and plan all these areas in the name of Equitable Economic Development? In fact, that is what the 2014 federal legislation–WIOA–now has all states and localities on record as planning. Since all the legislation to force the needed sociopolitical changes is now in place in the US, let’s go back to see what motivational research already knew in the 50s. After all the Congressionally created and White House visiting League of Innovative Schools was created to obtain desired research into what ‘motivates’ students.

Boulding, in a 1973 paper he wrote for the Social Science Education Consortium, laid out his interest in viewing the “whole human being as a system” whose “concepts and perceptions are often strongly influenced by our motives.” Is it any wonder then that motives have been officially targeted for research and that ‘concepts and perceptions’ are officially required for annual assessment via ESSA? Vance Packard shorthanded Motivational Research and its goals and techniques as MR in his book The Hidden Persuaders so we will too as we access some of its insights as to why education is now taking the same techniques and forcing them deceitfully on classrooms and students everywhere.

Packard quoted the magazine Advertising Age as stating the wide use of MR in politics–“This is all to the good.” What was not good, however, was the “growing public discussion of the importance of advertising in politics.” If public awareness that politicians were seeking to influence them emotionally and at subconscious and unconscious levels was problematic in the 50s, by all means let me continue to try to force a discussion of these same MR methods into K-12 education now. After all, if ‘role playing’ is a ‘psychological technique’ used to ‘modify the behavior and attitudes’ when it is used on ‘key personnel’ in large industrial organizations, it still has that same function when it becomes a required classroom practice for students.

If an insurance exec admitted role playing was used widely because “we needed a motivational device…[that] at the same time teaches at the emotional level,” that remains true when the methods are transferred from adults to the far more malleable minds of students. When Packard quoted the book The Engineering of Consent on how the MR methods are of “considerable value…to those who wish to modify society” and that “People must be controlled by manipulating their [instincts and emotions] rather than by changing their reasonings,” we get to remember that quote when the Davos crowd suddenly this month calls for  https://www.weforum.org/reports/new-vision-for-education-fostering-social-and-emotional-learning-through-technology .

That’s even more true once we realize that MR users in the 50s knew already that “if you are engineering consent, then I think the social sciences would like to warn you that you should begin with a basic analysis of three levels upon which consent moves in a society like ours.” Try not to get ill when we recognize that education now is all about manipulating level two and public policy think tanks and many pundits from every spectrum and announced party affiliation are all about targeting level three. The man being quoted above and below is a social anthropologist Lyman Bryson describing 1953 seminars on the social sciences held at Teachers College, Columbia for PR firms. My bolding.

“The first level, he said, is human nature. He added that little really could be done here to ‘manipulate’ people. The second level was cultural change, which is where you must operate, he said, if you want to influence people’s ideas. The third level is the region of choice. Here is where an impulse is running in a particular direction, and some sort of choice will be made regardless, ‘as when a choice between similar products [think tank or media deceit functions here] is made.’ At this level, he said, ‘it is relatively easy to manipulate people.’ On the other hand, if you are trying to change their ideas, ‘you work on the second level,’ where different ‘psychological pressures, techniques, and devices from those successful on the third level’ must be used.”

Think of that quote and the ubiquity of the School Choice mantra that the think tanks push as their solution to education and the needs of public policy. Suddenly the imperviousness of the phrase to facts that show there is actually no choice becomes clearer. Likewise, Packard quoted a Dr Samuel Stouffer, director of Harvard’s Laboratory of Social Relations telling his listeners that “it was a good working rule that people’s attitudes are more easily reached through their emotions than through their intellects.” Back to role playing and a Whole Child emphasis and that Science of Virtues, then, huh?

It should bother us a great deal that Dr Stouffer considered that to be ‘learning theory’ research. Looking for ‘triggers of action’ in the form of words or visuals, learning theory even in the 50s knew that “behaviors can be changed by changing ‘the motivational forces working upon them.'” Think about that when you reread Chapter 7 of my book about how the Common Core and Competency-based education really target values, attitudes, and beliefs. If people are systems as Boulding and others hoped, then those are the areas that must be changed in order for personal behavioral goals to change as well. Once again the redefinitions kick in as the socially reengineered student, and then adult, gets described as ‘autonomous.’ It’s called Hidden Persuaders for a reason as the MR techniques “can create wants in people that they still didn’t realize existed.”

Trained through learning tasks and classroom experiences to act. Requiring ‘performance standards’ precisely to force daily practice with engineered mental models and manipulated emotions. Meanwhile no one planned to disclose the engineered existence of an internalized noetic keel consciously carved during years of preschool-high school ‘student-centered’ education. Carved precisely so that politicians and agency planners can steer society as they wish and reward cronies as they want. Packard ended his book with this worry:

“The most serious offense many of the depth manipulators commit, it seems to me, is that they try to invade the privacy of our minds. It is this right to privacy in our minds–privacy to be either rational or irrational–that I believe we must strive to protect.”

Federal law now requires, and states and schools, public and private, everywhere are happy to go along with, a now mandated invasion of the privacy of our minds. That’s the purpose of education research and the mandated databases. Longitudinal is another word for what used to be called more clearly ‘time series data’. The point is not what is personally identifiable, but the changes over time to allow this desired steering process. Packard was lucky. He was able to get the word out to enough people that MR became notorious. So it went underground and got new names and is now mandated for all of our children. To ultimately control enough of us for this steering to guide all institutions, but installed through deceitful false narratives and K-12 education.

Let me end with the remaining purpose that I believe has motivated who has been  deemed acceptable for the Presidency and other political offices by either party since at least 1988. I think it is why ESSA and WIOA were “Bipartisan and Bicameral” as necessary components of the mostly invisible steering process. It’s 2016 and the oligarchs think it has taken far too long for what was planned in earnest from the 1950s on. Removing all obstacles, down to the level of the mental models of our minds, that might block the planned:

“most important social engineering role of them all–the gradual reorganization of human society, piece by piece and structure by structure.”

Person by person, starting with the children and euphemised as being about Learning, Student Growth, and Success for All.

 

 

Locating the Internalized Information Guiding Human Behavior So It Can Be Controlled and Transformed

Dictating such a transformation via preschool through high school, students would then essentially have a common core of prescribed values, attitudes and beliefs. For our Want-to-Be social and economic planning set that means future actions of most people would be both predictable and manipulable. The Planning Set, as I will call them, that we now know contains many different groups intent on fundamentally transforming the world that exists whether anyone consents or not, will know precisely what Values and Beliefs have been internalized and what visual Images, Words, and Phrases instilled. All become unconscious triggers available to command action.

To better appreciate why, let me quote Alexander N Christakis from a 2006 book How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy (my bolding to show what Planners take for granted):

“Different people in different situations cooperatively develop different interpretations of realities, especially social realities. In our efforts to understand social realities and design better futures, therefore, we must not assume commonly agreed upon linguistic domains. People come from different cultures and have different cultural sensitivities. They see things differently; have opposing ambitions; prize different values. The first priority, then, in a designing effort is to create a consensual linguistic domain among many diverse voices.”

Students, adults, cities, economies, and societies have each been designated by the Planning Set as subject to their designing efforts. We may start with differing values, beliefs, and experiences, but the new vision of education puts all these things on the table for change. Keeping us lulled as to what is being done to us and our children we get euphemisms like Classical Education as we have just covered, OBE, or Competency-based education to describe the new techniques. Stated goals of ‘Learning’ and ‘Student Growth’ make the changes seem salutary. As I mentioned in a comment to the previous post, that internalized set of Images, Ideas, Principles, Concepts, Values, and Beliefs gets assessed via initial Benchmarks, and then changed and monitored through assessments. Can you say Continuous Improvement?

Some Planners and educators call what is targeted–‘Worldview,’ as we just saw in the last 3 posts. Others use the phrases ‘Mental Models’ or ‘Cognitive Maps’. All are phrases with the same Target and the same aim of where the Bullseye is. To show just how long this has been a target of official Global Policy Planning, I was even able to chase these to the Oval Office of Bush 41 in May 1989.   https://bush41library.tamu.edu/files/memcons-telcons/1989-05-23–Finnbogadottir.pdf To prove that this still matters, here is the recent NSF letter announcing the Brain Observatory to develop a research infrastructure for neuroscience with the same target, techniques, and bullseye.  http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16047/nsf16047.jsp

In all my posts from 2016 I have been building up from a theme of what is wrong with an Ideas or Concepts first curricula that are not built up from facts. Instead, the purpose of the provided Concepts and Categories is to interpret experiences in a classroom emphasizing activity. Sometimes the activity is physical as in group projects or role-playing. Sometimes it is virtual reality where only the software designer controls the Cognitive Map being created or shifted, mostly out of sight of the student, the parents, and maybe even the teacher. https://libertymuseum.org/in-the-news/groundbreaking-evaluation-study-released/ is a new curricula and assessment designed for building character and civic purpose by “exploring the concept of liberty as a living moral construct in contemporary society.”

Everyone ready to sign their kids up for one of the bedrock principles underlying the American heritage? Not so fast if we read the report and discover that Liberty has been reconceptualized to be “grounded in the notion that liberty must be just and must serve the common good…liberty [must be] reciprocal and responsible…[Otherwise] when liberty is de-coupled from one’s responsibilities as a citizen, it threatens to become selfish and divisive.” I have linked to the report and know both American and English history and, unfortunately, the fundamental tenets of the Marxist Humanist political philosophy. I get to recognize when Liberty as a guiding concept has been completely redefined to mask committing the student to a notorious normative vision for how the world might operate.

Students and parents though do not get that opportunity. They are not likely to recognize that Liberty “as conceptualized by the Museum and this study…becomes the bedrock for societal flourishing and ethical growth of both individuals and society” just turned into a tool for achieving Marx’s famed Human Development Society. Like the Classical Education we just examined the web-based curricula and interactive exhibits with Young Heroes is designed to create “pro-social changes in student behaviors” grounded in the stipulated virtues.

Most parents though will just think of Liberty in its historic meaning and not know that on top of the above redefinitions students also get experiences designed to change their knowledge, attitudes and behaviors with regard to “the liberty of society as a collective (collective liberty), as well as the liberty of each individual within society (relational liberty).” Think of this then as a Comrade Reinterpretation of the Concept of Liberty, which gets even more troubling because part of the assessment is looking for signs that the Young Heroes Outreach Program “participants consistently evidenced greater retention of all five pillar virtues associated with liberty…lasting at least three months after their involvement with the program ended.”

Why is that post-program search for continued changes in behavior so crucial? Because it is looking for proof the learning experiences created a change at a neural level in each of those student’s Cognitive Map, Worldview, or Mental Model. When researchers found “increased action-oriented civic and social engagement, identifying a number of social issues, upon which to focus their community projects,” they found that the changes in what was believed and valued were driving a change in behavior in desired directions. Desired first, of course, by the Planning Set and now by the students themselves, if they are even aware of why they are now interested in things they may have previously never noticed, much less acted to change.

Anyone else noticing that Liberty has been quietly redefined in much the same way and for the same purpose as how Amartya Sen defined Freedom? Yes, the nuisance of people who actually read the small print and footnotes. That Torchbearers Report and the redefinition of Liberty was supported by the John Templeton Foundation and the Jubilee Center on Character and Virtues in the UK. When the Report used this quote from Sir John Templeton: “perhaps true freedom is not the freedom to do but rather the freedom to become all we can be,” I recognized the sentiment. Since I found a treasure trove back in January when I searched for the connections between Sen’s philosophy and the Atlas Network members, this time I searched for “Templeton Foundation Amartya Sen.”

http://scienceofvirtues.org/ came up as the Templeton-funded Project at U-Chicago to create a New Science of Virtues. If that sounds like an excellent way to get at the values part of the Cognitive Map, I thought so too. There were conferences in 2010 and 2011. Perusing the Virtues Project Abstracts I discovered that the Divinity School was involved since Virtues were seen as a means to achieving ‘new spiritual knowledge.’ Chicago’s Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience administers the Project. Now would probably be a good time to remember Chapter 6 of my book and how the Planning Set wants to use education to gain a cultural evolution since biological change takes too long.

In the last post we talked about the sudden ubiquity of phrases like self-rule, self-regulation, and self-government. We can now add the Virtue of Self-Control where one of the members of the team of investigators is psychologist Angela Duckworth of Grit and Perseverence fame. More importantly she is involved through her Character Lab with the national Growth Mindset study being pushed by the White House Behavioral and Social Sciences ‘Nudge’ Team. That means this Science of Virtues is involved too. That certainly puts new meaning to this expressed goal:

“The proposed research will produce a comprehensive framework for formulating and evaluating economic and social policy with deeper psychological and ethical foundations than are traditional in economic analyses. It will develop a more comprehensive understanding of the origins and consequences of human differences.”

Very exciting then for the Planning Set! Another investigator on that same team is a Philosophy prof with a focus on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy. That’s a useful link to what we saw as we examined Classical Ed which somehow also loves to name drop Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates while making the point about enacting their ‘virtue-ethics.’ More rationale for transforming the internalized cognitive maps controlling behavior. Another part of the Project seeks “The Transformation of Virtues: Imagination, Vision and Dreams and Sources of Human Excellence and Practical Knowledge.” Sounds good even though it intends to prescribe and create an internalized Worldview of guiding values and beliefs to help students “understand the virtue of being able to face up to a collapse of the virtues when a culture is collapsing or being destroyed-as well as the virtue of living well in the aftermath of such catastrophe.”

Oh, Joy. The Planning Set creates the catastrophe while prescribing the beliefs and values to supposedly adjust to what is now broken. The 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development again defines “virtues, then, are psychological and behavioral characteristics that guide a person towards integrative and positive, or even noble, purposes for self and the world. In short, virtues are understood to play a key role in a person’s positive life trajectory and in the quality of civil society.”

But those characteristics are being prescribed and instilled via education without notice or even consent. Like the experiences obtained though the reconceptualization of Liberty, the curriculum is designed to guide and motivate certain behavior from a subconscious or even unconscious level.

Cool for the Planning Set who get power, grants, and promotions for pushing this transformation of the purposes of education.

Not cool at all for parents and students unaware of what ‘brain-based learning’ now really means or the taxpayers being asked to fund all these transformations.

Before anyone thinks that the answer is just to monitor what philanthropies or the NSF are funding in the name of education, please appreciate the National Institutes of Health is also launching research with the same Target and Bullseye. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-16-009.html

Theories about Mental Models or Computational Neuroscience are not innocuous terms for research either.