Hacker News Reader

Comment by sonnyblarney | Hacker News Reader

" defending and justifying an indefensible or immoral case, or spreading rumors and damaging others' reputation." I actually doubt this, maybe there was something missed in the communication?

Also the 'aristocracy' is definitely gone. Entrance to the 'Grande Ecoles' is competitive, not based on nobility.

But yes, once you're in, you're 'set' and they do protect each other, it's similar to Oxbridge and Ivy League to some degree.

View on HN

I don't think I missed anything in communication -- we're both reasonably articulate and know each other very well. Paraphrasing, there was an assignment that stretched over a few weeks, where students were supposed to try to start rumors about each other, and report back any such rumors that took root.

There were also assignments given to each student in turn, of the type "this is the position you are going to defend -- you have two hours to prepare, then you must front a debate in front of the class where you defend this viewpoint, regardless of whether you agree with it or not".

It doesn't require abnormally critical skills to imagine what sort of societal power structures such an education is meant to support.

The first is thing is pretty horible, it is however an interesting thing to learn as you WIll encounter people who do this in your career.

Second is probably the best way to learn about a topic and how to debate. Take something you abhore and defend it. It is an incredibly useful skill.

People from US and Canada in general are absolutely terrible at it, this is why in debates vs British or French they usually loose.

I remember going to Monk debate where head of Green Party of Canada got absolutely annihilated, they got under her skin, made her completely loose it to the point moderator had to cut her microphone. It was sad.

Be a Nazi for a day, then if you ever debate one you will have a huge advantage.

No, I think you need to characterize the structures that would support. For example, the latter sounds like an ideological Turing test [0]. I think training using this method broadens one’s empathy for and ability to engage with those who hold positions other than one’s own.

0. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.htm...

> There were also assignments given to each student in turn, of the type "this is the position you are going to defend -- you have two hours to prepare, then you must front a debate in front of the class where you defend this viewpoint, regardless of whether you agree with it or not".

Unless the positions were somehow inherently dangerous (i.e. advocating violence or similar) that's how you learn to debate. It forces you to consider viewpoints that don't align with your gut instinct.

In the US, high school debate competitions all revolve around a single topic, and you alternate rounds between defending and opposing it. One such topic I recall a lot of people struggling with (compared to other topics) was "An oppressive government is better than no government" or something along those lines.

Now, if the debate were something like "Women deserve to be paid less than men" I can understand being exceptionally uncomfortable being forced to defend that position.

The starting rumors assignment sounds like the kind of thing that would lead to firings and lawsuits in the educational settings I'm familiar with.

The second one, though - like the other posters have noted - is just a basic debate assignment you'd find in lots of schools.

I'm basically incredulous to the point where I simply don't believe this is true.

If this was an exercise in 'how to start false rumours to ruin someone' - then it's not just 'questionable', it's shocking.

I can see this as part of an exercise to demonstrate how these things are 'powerful' - but as a training exercise .... it's so abrupt I just don't believe it.

If this is part of the curriculum it should be posted somewhere, no?

Edit:

Here is a paper from Paris School of Economics [1] a 'Grande Ecole' where profs have basically studied how information flows through social networks.

I can easily see a professor teaching this course asking students to 'start some kind of rumouor' to see how the information propagates through social networks.

I don't for a second believe that this would be taught in a manner such that students are being 'instructed on how to use rumours to advance their careers' or some kind of nefarious thing.

I believe it's totally misrepresentative to indicate that schools would be doing such nefarious things, and I think that for whatever reason the OP has possibly misunderstood the nature of this kind of activity.

A quick glance at the paper reveals that this is just regular, kind of interesting social science.

[1] https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00966234/document

Once science has determined something, and the steps are reproducible and the papers are published, it's hard to stop it from being weaponized, even if it takes time.

For instance, some explosives that were developed for the mining industry are now used in military applications- similarly, there's nothing really stopping someone from weaponizing almost any scientific discovery.

These tactics were weaponized more than 2 000 years ago, we're just actually studying them now.

But the issue is not that they exist, it's that people are somehow thinking these Machiavellian tools are literally being taught as part of a curriculum as craft at France's highest institutions - this I find very hard to believe. I think that the kids are learning this in high school outside of class if anything.

I'm French, and I find it pretty easy to believe. I even have another example: some elite schools teach oenology. Now what could possibly be the point of formally educating people on the finer details of wine making and tasting? It's simply how the aristocracy recognise themselves. There are other class recognition examples: for instance, rich kids tend to play tennis more than they play soccer.

I know third hand of someone who paid attention to his watch and smartphone to get a job (or a promotion, I don't recall). It was in finance. The idea is, if you belong to the right social class, you are allowed to go up. If they spot you for a commoner, you're not. Simple as that.

Think this is a stretch? I'v read an article (American article) about how someone was denied a job because of how she dressed. Oh she was dressed all right, neat and all, but she also had a dark skin (okay, she was black), and here is what the boss said once the interview was over: "my, you don't wear a tank top under your shirt, you wear a silk shell!".

Such a little detail, but that was nevertheless a sign that this applicant was perhaps not as rich as she should have been.

>But yes, once you're in, you're 'set' and they do protect each other, it's similar to Oxbridge and Ivy League to some degree.

Just two weeks ago the headmaster of a prestigious private school in the UK claimed that the rise in Oxbridge admissions from students educated at state schools was a form of "social engineering" and likened it to anti-Semitism.

>Privately educated pupils in the UK are also being accused of dominating the top jobs and stifling social mobility

Huh, it's almost as if... they actually do.

"Meritocracy" for these people really means "quis paget entrat".

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/head-liken...

> "quis paget entrat".

Um, what? Only one out of three of those is actually a word.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Privat...

"defending and justifying an indefensible or immoral case" This is a very interesting thing, especially if taught methodically. I used to do it for fun to see how far I can push(always admitting at the end). Very very few people remain with their initial barriers/values,therefore can be substantially manipulated relatively easy.

My Ivy League school wasn’t anything like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com