Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools
gauld admits hyde is a fraud and quits
Ursus:
Hi Mike, thought it might be you! Hmmm... 'MyEye Mike' might be a cool moniker?
:rofl:
-Urs
Thanks, guys, for adding the IDs!
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---
--- Quote from: ""my eye person"" ---I maintain that if you play the Hyde game you will win big time at Hyde and there is indeed a payoff: peace, praise, power, Paris, Hyde diploma, and more. The fact that outside of Hyde the term "winner" may be synonymous with "loser" (hypocrite, Nazi, dog turd, etc.) is incontrovertible but does not detract from the fact that a payoff can be had by playing the game at Hyde.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: ""Emil"" ---I am not using the term indiscriminately. I am however referring implicitly to the definition of the terms in the Hyde sense.
Winner = Hyde graduate
Loser = {drop out, runaway, banished, walked with a certificate}
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: ""my eye person"" --- I say that the assignment of winner-loser status is not random (e.g., coin toss) because it is made on the basis of character evaluation. You maintain that the assignment is random because of the margin of error inherent in character evaluation. I think that we can both agree that character evaluation is performance-based and hence "inaccurate" rather than "random."
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: ""Emil"" ---If you went to Hyde, you know that some of the tests are like the medieval practices of determining if a person is a practitioner of witchcraft. "If she floats she's a witch" "If the sore festers he's a warlock" Substitute: If he is a start Varsity Athlete , if her parent's are large donors. Then add the A list people that are faking it and the fact that the sincere folk that are accepted just because they fit the system, which IMHO is a contra indication of character, you have a system that is more or less heads or tails.
--- End quote ---
Okay, please forgive me if I have misattributed identities in the above... and sorry if I haven't picked the quotes in the best possible fashion; I'm having trouble with my "previews"...
To me, the whole issue of how it is determined whether someone does well at Hyde or not is somewhat academic... I hear all of the above, and I agree with sentiments stated... said differences seem to be far smaller than notable similarities. I think Hyde tries to follow something analogous to a formula of performance and character evaluation, but the reality is that many other factors enter the picture:
* athletic prowess or lack thereof
* social adroitness/graces or lack thereof
* family financials or lack thereof
* family fame or lack thereof
* family input (Family Weekends and recruitment activity) or lack thereof
* the mallability of your mind or the impression thereof
* whether someone in a position of power really likes you or really dislikes youThere are cases of kids who do all that is required--who fervently believe, and to whom it is not a game, but the real thing--and the school still brands them a loser and ostracizes them. And that is horrible, given the consequences of not fitting in at Hyde. This is hardly a democratic or pluralistic society, none but those who socially conform to the Hyde status quo--be it by effort or be it by luck--can possibly truly succeed in this system. It is, as someone else brought up here not too long ago (?maybe not someone else, but I have no way of knowing or remembering)... a real Lord of The Flies scenario.
Just my thoughts, the usual piss and vinegar...
::bigmouth:: ::bigmouth::
--- End quote ---
That is why I think the color blind person sorting colored paper is a great analogy. What is character, and how do you judge it? I don't think Hyde has a clue. I think they use some external indications that have little bearing on character, like introversion vs extroversion. Why is extroversion a character indicator.
Emil N
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---Hi Mike, thought it might be you! Hmmm... 'My Eye Mike' might be a cool moniker?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---I think Hyde tries to follow something analogous to a formula of performance and character evaluation, but the reality is that many other factors enter the picture:
* athletic prowess or lack thereof
* social adroitness/graces or lack thereof
* family financials or lack thereof
* family fame or lack thereof
* family input (Family Weekends and recruitment activity) or lack thereof
* the mallability of your mind or the impression thereof
* whether someone in a position of power really likes you or really dislikes you
--- End quote ---
Urs,
An eye for an eye. Why do you believe that the non-character-based factors listed above are taken into account during an evaluation? For my part, I'm willing to give Hyde the benefit of the doubt that every character evaluation is made in good faith.
Mike
Ursus:
...speaking strictly from personal experience, Mike, and from what I have observed and remembered...
There were quite a few things that I remembered, perhaps not the same things some one else might have, and perhaps not even the most important ones, to be sure... And why I remembered these, and not some else, is a mixed bag in and of itself. But the adult perspective I have now, as opposed to the malleable plate I was then, has lent a change to the wind of perception.
I'm sure that an earnest Hyde rookie can spew out a "good faith character evaluation" that could pass muster at Hyde. The key descriptive here is "earnest Hyde rookie," which, by definition, involves a mindset incapable of authentic objectivity, however well-intentioned.
Ursus:
Let us not forget the realities of continued existence. No money? No sunny school.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version