Believer vs Nonbeliever: A Difference in Preferred Styles of Thinking?

[Sunstone]

PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.​

INTRODUCTION:

How often have you heard this, or things similar to this:

"Atheists hate authority, and God is the ultimate authority. Hence, atheists are atheists because they hate God."​

Or, how often have you heard this, or things similar to this:

"Theists are gullible and obedient. They will swallow anything from a person who is in a position of authority over them. That's why they believe in God. Someone they respected told them to."​

Ridiculous as it might sound at first, such pop notions of nonbelievers and believers might actually have a spec of truth to them. Of course, finding the truth in them is like panning for gold. You must work your butt off shifting through a ton of gravel to find a nugget of gold.

Moreover, if there is indeed a bit of truth to the pop notions, it seems to only apply to a specific kind of person, and not just everyone. The kind of person who goes through life more curious about the 'Big Questions', than the 'little ones'.

He or she prefers thinking about the possible existence of god, the meaning of life, the nature of love, and the fall selection of women's lingerie, rather than prefers thinking about which jobs are the most lucrative, what kind of house they want, whether its time for a new car, or where their missing teens are at two in the morning ("They'll make it back, honey. Don't you worry. Just as soon as they flatten their debit cards").

But if there is indeed a nugget of truth to be found in the popular myths, BS, and lies about believers and nonbelievers, then what is that nugget?


TWO INSTINCTUAL STYLES OF LEARNING AND THINKING:

I am going to guess the nugget of truth is somewhere to be found in the two most important instinctual styles of learning we humans are born with. Imitation and play. I laid out the meaning of the two styles in another thread that I posted earlier today. Here's the OP of that thread:

Play is one of at least two instinctive ways that humans learn. The other way is imitation. Both ways of learning seem to be deeply rooted in our genes. Children never need to be taught to play nor taught to imitate. The behaviors come instinctively to them. During both play and imitation, children acquire skills they will need later on in life. In short, they learn.

However, play and imitation are not merely ways we humans acquire skills, they are also ways we humans acquire information and views. That is, data, facts, opinions, perspectives, and even some of our morals and values. This becomes apparent when one considers that rote learning can seen as a form of imitation, and creative (imaginative) thinking and critical thinking can be seen as forms of play.

To be a bit more precise, there are many forms of play, but the one we want to focus on here is the game of "let's pretend". That's what we call the game when children do it. When adults do it, we more often call it asking 'what if' questions. A childhood game of "Let's pretend I'm T-Rex and you're the infinitely annoying Stephanie Morrison, and I'm stomping towards your house..." easily morphs within only a few years into, "What if I saved the beautiful and charming Stephanie Morrison from a T-Rex attack? Would she at last notice I even exist?" 'Let's pretend' and 'what if' are very similar to each other. And they encourage both creative thinking and critical thinking.

Imitation, by its very nature is an excellent way to pass along cultural traits with very little change or modification. Especially in the form of rote learning, imitation actively avoids any changes to the information and views passed from one person to another by its means. But by those very facts, imitation discourages discovery, innovation, creative thinking, and critical thinking.

Essentially, imitation can be fairly described as "in-the-box thinking" while play can be fairly described as "Beyond-the-box thinking". Quite obviously, God and Darwin intended us to use both.

Dozens of scientific studies have shown that some people perform best in well-structured environments while others perform best in less-structure environments. Those preferences extend to education and thinking.

Some kids learn best when they are placed in well-organized classrooms and taught according to plans and schedules. Other kids are quite the opposite. They learn best when they allowed to roam and wander at will from one topic to another. Such kids might begin wondering why the sky is blue. That will lead them into wanting to know about the visible spectrum. From there they might suddenly branch off in almost any direction.

Get those two groups of kids mixed up, and neither group does well. The free range kids can't stand a well-structured environment. The organized kids become lost and demotivated in a free range environment. Madness to put them in the same classroom! Madness!

(I myself was a free-range kid forced to endure well-structured classrooms due to nothing else being available in my schools. I spent my school days bristling at my teachers, refusing to pay attention to anything in class, and cracking wickedly funny jokes to disrupt the classroom. Then I would go home, hide out in my basement chemistry lab, and stick my nose in every book I could find like I was a bee and my books were honey. By middle school, I was the best-read kid in my class. I had no idea what was wrong with me, and was often ashamed of my compulsive behavior, but I later found out my behavior was typical of free-range boys in well-structured classrooms. Free-range girls rebel too, only in different ways.)
​

IMPRESSIVE AND ENGAGING CONCLUSION:

It seems possible to me that some believers (but not all believers) really are in a very special sense believers to some significant extent because they prefer learning well-structured and packaged beliefs such as many religions provide in the form of sacred texts, authoritative clergy and teachers, etc.

It furthermore seems possible to me that some nonbelievers (but not all nonbelievers) really are in a very special sense nonbelievers to some significant extent because they prefer leaning in an unstructured and exploratory manner that shuns well-structured and packaged beliefs.

As a rough rule of thumb, I mean. Not as a black and white, either/or, firmly fixed distinction.

Comments?



______________________________

 

[Sunstone]

Opening the thread.

 

[sun rise]

This time I don't see any connection between theist/atheist and learning style. It's possible that maybe some would.

In any event, I think rather than learning style determining theism or lack thereof, quite a few follow their parents and social environment. So an atheist raised in an atheist home with atheist neighbors who were comfortable in structured environments would be as likely to stay atheists as theists would be if raised by theists with theist neighbors.

Side note: I appreciate your continuing effort to have discussions.

 

[Polymath257]

As I was reading this, I have to say that I was wondering which learning style you were going to assign to which position. I think both believers and non-believers have strong elements of both.

So, the believer may like a structured plan for certain activities, but they don't want the firm structure in their belief system in the same way. While a non-believer wants a firmer structure in their belief system, but maybe not so much in their day-to-day lives.

When I was young, I thrived in the structured classes of elementary school through junior high school. They taught me what I was supposed to answer of exams, and then I could go to the library and learn about the stuff I was actually interested in. So, a combination of structure and lack thereof.

In the same way, theism seems to allow for a wide range of speculation that is either not structured, or is only lightly structured: as long as the conclusions are in line with the local dogma, the path is open. This can be contrasted to the more structured pattern for learning or even researching the sciences.

I am more inclined to say that non-believers are more likely to fear being wrong: they don't want to believe anything unless there is a good reason to do so. While a believer is less likely to be so constrained and, maybe, more open to wild speculation about things that cannot be known.

 

[joe1776]

One of my earliest memories is of my parents telling me about Santa Claus. I didn't question them but my reaction was: Do they really expect me to believe this?

I was born a skeptic. I'm especially skeptical of people who label themselves Skeptics

On important matters I can be persuaded by evidence or logic.

I don't know what goes on in the minds of others. The theory offered in the OP might apply to others but I don't relate to it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I can not speak for non believers ør Even for other believers, but to me it is good when the teaching is strickt and that to gain "results" it is hard work from my own part. It would not work for me if all i had to do was believing in a God, and the God had to do the work for me.

 

[Sunstone]

As I was reading this, I have to say that I was wondering which learning style you were going to assign to which position. I think both believers and non-believers have strong elements of both.

Good point. I should clarify something I only hinted at in the last line of the OP (I thought I had already written a Russian novel, no need to write two). I am by no means suggesting that all believers strongly prefer a structured learning style, or that all nonbelievers strongly prefer an unstructured learning style. On the contrary, I am only a total imbecile when in love (with chocolates).

Now this is just for clarification and not for debate, but the way I see it, I am speaking in the OP in terms of probabilities, tendencies. Not in absolutes. And even then, I am only speaking of a subset of believers and nonbelievers. So, I am saying things along the lines of "This subset of believers has a tendency to prefer an imitative learning style ("rote" learning, to most of us) which is perhaps associated with a preference for passively learning well-structured belief-systems, as opposed to a preference for actively 'striking out on their own', etc."

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I believe you and I are largely in agreement here --- once my position (which I did not make explicit enough) is understood.

I am more inclined to say that non-believers are more likely to fear being wrong: they don't want to believe anything unless there is a good reason to do so. While a believer is less likely to be so constrained and, maybe, more open to wild speculation about things that cannot be known.

I agree that the fear of being wrong is a major factor with many nonbelievers. I do not see that as necessarily incompatible with other factors also contributing to why they are nonbelievers. Such as what I mentioned in the OP.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would surmise it's a matter between rational thinking and wanting something to be true so bad that it just becomes a truth no matter what.

The Bible says it....

I believe it....

That settles it.

~Jesus Camp~

 

[Sunstone]

Side note: I appreciate your continuing effort to have discussions.

Thank you,bro. That makes the effort worthwhile.

 

[osgart]

I tend to think atheists don't like religion because it walls off and guards one away from other explanations. Atheists want to go where the evidence leads, and not have to rely on something considered unreliable for answers.

Religious thinking I do not understand. Perhaps their emotional responses to their literature gets the best of them.

As an atheist with a strong religious sense of mystery at the unknown, I really can't identify totally with either side. I am independently religious, and I do not want to be swayed away from actual reality whatsoever. I enjoy the noble quest for highest virtue. And I can't ignore the critical thinking of philosophy and science, though I am rather new to these things.

My spirit says to discover things for myself with my own eyes, and come to my own best conclusions.

I was raised with a highly christianized way of thinking. And I want to move away from all that fundamentalism. It's like chains. It's stifling.

I think there is enough mystery to Existence to be sufficiently perplexed.

Emotions can really steer people the wrong way. I desperately need reason and logic, and evidences. And my faith has to be grounded in trustworthy sources.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I tend to think atheists don't like religion because it walls off and guards one away from other explanations. Atheists want to go where the evidence leads, and not have to rely on something considered unreliable for answers.

Religious thinking I do not understand. Perhaps their emotional responses to their literature gets the best of them.

As an atheist with a strong religious sense of mystery at the unknown, I really can't identify totally with either side. I am independently religious, and I do not want to be swayed away from actual reality whatsoever. I enjoy the noble quest for highest virtue. And I can't ignore the critical thinking of philosophy and science, though I am rather new to these things.

My spirit says to discover things for myself with my own eyes, and come to my own best conclusions.

I was raised with a highly christianized way of thinking. And I want to move away from all that fundamentalism. It's like chains. It's stifling.

I think there is enough mystery to Existence to be sufficiently perplexed.

Emotions can really steer people the wrong way. I desperately need reason and logic, and evidences. And my faith has to be grounded in trustworthy sources.

There's nothing really erroneous about belief in itself. I think the problems start when a person is asked how exactly did they arrive to that belief and transforming into something more than a belief.

 

[Nakosis]

PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.​

INTRODUCTION:

How often have you heard this, or things similar to this:

"Atheists hate authority, and God is the ultimate authority. Hence, atheists are atheists because they hate God."​

Or, how often have you heard this, or things similar to this:

"Theists are gullible and obedient. They will swallow anything from a person who is in a position of authority over them. That's why they believe in God. Someone they respected told them to."​

Let's see...

Yeah, I dislike authority but when I believed in a God, God was not an authority figure for me. God was more of a search for truth. A truth I assume God would be found at the center of. I saw the Bible as stories about God, not really commandments from God.

Also, I didn't like the structure of the church much. Folks telling me what I had to be doing which to me seemed little to do with God. I quickly become disenchanted with most churches. They seemed more lost than I was or some even completely missing the mark.

For me it was a personal relationship with God. The authority was my actual experience. A religion/belief which didn't fit with my experiences I ended up dismissing. To me, there was no greater truth than what I was actually experiencing.

Maybe some have that need for authority however many I've talked to, belief consists of personal experience. Not a need for authority.

So never a need for authority. God, belief in a God was a need for truth.

However, I saw truth as something that needed validation. Shouldn't believe in something you can't verify. What I learned, discovered about personal experience, my previous guiding truth, was that PE is not a reliable guide to the truth. While I accept many people experience a relationship with God, outside the experience itself, that relationship can't be verified. Because of that, I could no longer justify belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am an atheist. (Whoah! Who knew?!!?)

I am also somebody who, from as far back as I can remember, is one who does not tend to simply trust what I am told. I always ask questions. I always "look around back" to see what's there. My most frequent question (the bane of every parent) has always been "why?" And if I don't get a satisfactory answer to that "why," I'm not ready to buy it. It may be right, it may be wrong, but I won't accept it until I can fit it to within the bounds of reason.

Yes, sometimes the answer to "why" is "just because." Well, no, not really. But think of earthquakes and tsunamis, tornados that raze towns and kill people, diseases that shut whole societies down. The "why" question isn't enough, because it always seems to presuppose an answer based on some motivation or other. And motivation is something that can only be ascribed to intelligence. Thus, the fact that the planet has a molten core, moving enormous, miles thick plates of crust about willy-nilly, and sometimes causing earthquakes, or mountains to rear up, or tsunamis to roar into harbours, must needs be ascribed to some intelligence, some "being" motivated to cause such things.

And I can't think like that. Sometimes, the plaque that blocks an artery that causes a heart-attack or stroke just happens, and no "being" willed it, or is responsible for it. Sometimes, the size 12 shoe that wipes out several dozen tiny ants on a sidewalk didn't do it on purpose, but just didn't look down.

If you think like that, I am persuaded that you cannot get to "gods," or religion. To do so requires you have to take another step, ask another "why" question, for which no answer will ever be available. To the believer who thinks that "God created a virus to punish some humans for some transgression," I am always forced to ask, "why such a blunt tool, that punishes so many innocent others at the same time? What's gone wrong with God's aim, that could once single out only those who were born first?"

And if I can't get a reasonable answer to that, I simply do what I've always done...rule God out as an explanation, because to me it explains....well, nothing, really.

 

[osgart]

There's nothing really erroneous about belief in itself. I think the problems start when a person is asked how exactly did they arrive to that belief and transforming into something more than a belief.

Like by the magic of belief evidence is revealed!

The only thing evident about that is that they are living their belief.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.​

INTRODUCTION:

How often have you heard this, or things similar to this:

"Atheists hate authority, and God is the ultimate authority. Hence, atheists are atheists because they hate God."​

Or, how often have you heard this, or things similar to this:

"Theists are gullible and obedient. They will swallow anything from a person who is in a position of authority over them. That's why they believe in God. Someone they respected told them to."​

Ridiculous as it might sound at first, such pop notions of nonbelievers and believers might actually have a spec of truth to them. Of course, finding the truth in them is like panning for gold. You must work your butt off shifting through a ton of gravel to find a nugget of gold.

Moreover, if there is indeed a bit of truth to the pop notions, it seems to only apply to a specific kind of person, and not just everyone. The kind of person who goes through life more curious about the 'Big Questions', than the 'little ones'.

He or she prefers thinking about the possible existence of god, the meaning of life, the nature of love, and the fall selection of women's lingerie, rather than prefers thinking about which jobs are the most lucrative, what kind of house they want, whether its time for a new car, or where their missing teens are at two in the morning ("They'll make it back, honey. Don't you worry. Just as soon as they flatten their debit cards").

But if there is indeed a nugget of truth to be found in the popular myths, BS, and lies about believers and nonbelievers, then what is that nugget?


TWO INSTINCTUAL STYLES OF LEARNING AND THINKING:

I am going to guess the nugget of truth is somewhere to be found in the two most important instinctual styles of learning we humans are born with. Imitation and play. I laid out the meaning of the two styles in another thread that I posted earlier today. Here's the OP of that thread:



Dozens of scientific studies have shown that some people perform best in well-structured environments while others perform best in less-structure environments. Those preferences extend to education and thinking.

Some kids learn best when they are placed in well-organized classrooms and taught according to plans and schedules. Other kids are quite the opposite. They learn best when they allowed to roam and wander at will from one topic to another. Such kids might begin wondering why the sky is blue. That will lead them into wanting to know about the visible spectrum. From there they might suddenly branch off in almost any direction.

Get those two groups of kids mixed up, and neither group does well. The free range kids can't stand a well-structured environment. The organized kids become lost and demotivated in a free range environment. Madness to put them in the same classroom! Madness!

(I myself was a free-range kid forced to endure well-structured classrooms due to nothing else being available in my schools. I spent my school days bristling at my teachers, refusing to pay attention to anything in class, and cracking wickedly funny jokes to disrupt the classroom. Then I would go home, hide out in my basement chemistry lab, and stick my nose in every book I could find like I was a bee and my books were honey. By middle school, I was the best-read kid in my class. I had no idea what was wrong with me, and was often ashamed of my compulsive behavior, but I later found out my behavior was typical of free-range boys in well-structured classrooms. Free-range girls rebel too, only in different ways.)
​

IMPRESSIVE AND ENGAGING CONCLUSION:

It seems possible to me that some believers (but not all believers) really are in a very special sense believers to some significant extent because they prefer learning well-structured and packaged beliefs such as many religions provide in the form of sacred texts, authoritative clergy and teachers, etc.

It furthermore seems possible to me that some nonbelievers (but not all nonbelievers) really are in a very special sense nonbelievers to some significant extent because they prefer leaning in an unstructured and exploratory manner that shuns well-structured and packaged beliefs.

As a rough rule of thumb, I mean. Not as a black and white, either/or, firmly fixed distinction.

Comments?



______________________________

I have had so many thoughts about this, and from quite a few different angles, that my main problem is trying to pick a coherent way of responding. However, lack of coherence has never really stopped me posting before, so here goes...

Whilst I realise...and you were very careful to highlight...that this isn't meant as a binary discussion point, I'm going to aim at that first regardless. This may be because I'm an atheist, and tend towards preferring free-form learning...ahem...

I know the OP is aware, but for any onlookers, my professional background is teaching (specifically primary school) although I left the industry 20 years ago (and holy hell, does that make me feel old). I agree that there is variance in how children learn, and what sort of learning environments suit them, and have long been an advocate of education reform. I'd push back pretty hard on the notion of structured versus unstructured learning as the most effective dichotomy, though (and I know you weren't suggesting it was, just go with me here a little...)

The same mini-you who seemed to find little value in classes, was also using books as a source of information and drinking them in like honey. Eating them like honey. Meh. In any case, you can't GET more structured than a book.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't think it was the structure of the lessons that was the real killer, it was more the method of delivery, the choice of content, and the lack of personal investment in topic choices. But there are other factors, like the social aspects of a classroom (some children are going to feel constrained by this), the tools on hand, the freedom to make mistakes, make messes, etc.

It gets pretty difficult to pick out aspects of this convoluted spaghetti, and point to it as the reason some children thrive outside a classroom, and others within. My most memorable teacher was a science, maths and computer geek, whilst I was always more drawn to language and history. But he found a way to make structured topics, with right and wrong answers into ways to challenge traditional concepts, and to make us realise the universe was big, and learning and discovery was more important than 'knowledge'.

My point here...well, it's not to poo-poo the OP, since I think there was a lot of validity there. But it's worth considering the same basic arguments less from a 'structured' vs 'unstructured' viewpoint, and more from a 'externally-directed' vs 'self-directed' viewpoint. Some people want agency in their learning, and in their knowledge, whilst others want the exact opposite.

I don't think this would readily tie to views about theism, in truth. But I suspect it would pretty readily connect to concepts of religion, and also perhaps to certain political and cultural norms.
For example, I wonder how the concepts identified in the OP relate to general rebelliousness against ones parents, or association with counter-culture, or...I dunno...

*ponders*

This is where my post falls into incoherence a little, but I'll keep thinking...lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am an atheist. (Whoah! Who knew?!!?)

I am also somebody who, from as far back as I can remember, is one who does not tend to simply trust what I am told. I always ask questions. I always "look around back" to see what's there. My most frequent question (the bane of every parent) has always been "why?" And if I don't get a satisfactory answer to that "why," I'm not ready to buy it. It may be right, it may be wrong, but I won't accept it until I can fit it to within the bounds of reason.

Yes, sometimes the answer to "why" is "just because." Well, no, not really. But think of earthquakes and tsunamis, tornados that raze towns and kill people, diseases that shut whole societies down. The "why" question isn't enough, because it always seems to presuppose an answer based on some motivation or other. And motivation is something that can only be ascribed to intelligence. Thus, the fact that the planet has a molten core, moving enormous, miles thick plates of crust about willy-nilly, and sometimes causing earthquakes, or mountains to rear up, or tsunamis to roar into harbours, must needs be ascribed to some intelligence, some "being" motivated to cause such things.

And I can't think like that. Sometimes, the plaque that blocks an artery that causes a heart-attack or stroke just happens, and no "being" willed it, or is responsible for it. Sometimes, the size 12 shoe that wipes out several dozen tiny ants on a sidewalk didn't do it on purpose, but just didn't look down.

If you think like that, I am persuaded that you cannot get to "gods," or religion. To do so requires you have to take another step, ask another "why" question, for which no answer will ever be available. To the believer who thinks that "God created a virus to punish some humans for some transgression," I am always forced to ask, "why such a blunt tool, that punishes so many innocent others at the same time? What's gone wrong with God's aim, that could once single out only those who were born first?"

And if I can't get a reasonable answer to that, I simply do what I've always done...rule God out as an explanation, because to me it explains....well, nothing, really.

Meh, I dunno. I'm guessing you know I'm an atheist too, but I think we have to make sure we differentiate between cause and correlation. All the things you're talking about here appear to be pushbacks on certain religious beliefs. I don't see how they discount a God, or Gods. They speak to the lack of an interventionist God, maybe, but you could take the information you have in this post and end up apatheist, pantheist, deist, atheist, ignostic, alphabet soupism, or whatever else.

I'm not for a moment challenging your beliefs here, just that personally I don't conflate atheism with the points you made, because it seems a little too certain. Like...half the reason I'm an atheist, and have issues with religion, is because I think a LACK of certainty on these things is healthier and more defensible.

In any case, no problem with anything you posted, and a lot of it spoke to me, too. Hope you can take my comments in the sense with which they were intended.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Meh, I dunno. I'm guessing you know I'm an atheist too, but I think we have to make sure we differentiate between cause and correlation. All the things you're talking about here appear to be pushbacks on certain religious beliefs. I don't see how they discount a God, or Gods. They speak to the lack of an interventionist God, maybe, but you could take the information you have in this post and end up apatheist, pantheist, deist, atheist, ignostic, alphabet soupism, or whatever else.

I'm not for a moment challenging your beliefs here, just that personally I don't conflate atheism with the points you made, because it seems a little too certain. Like...half the reason I'm an atheist, and have issues with religion, is because I think a LACK of certainty on these things is healthier and more defensible.

In any case, no problem with anything you posted, and a lot of it spoke to me, too. Hope you can take my comments in the sense with which they were intended.

Well, I'm not sure that I could end up with any of those beliefs that include a "god" of any sort -- because that requires that I inject into my thinking some sort of "intentionality." And that's the part that I just never get to -- for the simple reason that it doesn't appear to me to be necessary to explain what is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, I'm not sure that I could end up with any of those beliefs that include a "god" of any sort -- because that requires that I inject into my thinking some sort of "intentionality." And that's the part that I just never get to -- for the simple reason that it doesn't appear to me to be necessary to explain what is.

I've come to a similar conclusion.
I've also thought that if God is so truly divorced from his creation (as some forms of deistic beliefs would state) then my belief or non-belief in God makes absolutely no difference, either to God, or to anything else. My behaviours (which might be impacted by a belief in God) obviously do, but that's no different to anything anyone does. God becomes irrelevant, basically.

 

[Sunstone]

I have had so many thoughts about this, and from quite a few different angles, that my main problem is trying to pick a coherent way of responding. However, lack of coherence has never really stopped me posting before, so here goes...

Whilst I realise...and you were very careful to highlight...that this isn't meant as a binary discussion point, I'm going to aim at that first regardless. This may be because I'm an atheist, and tend towards preferring free-form learning...ahem...

I know the OP is aware, but for any onlookers, my professional background is teaching (specifically primary school) although I left the industry 20 years ago (and holy hell, does that make me feel old). I agree that there is variance in how children learn, and what sort of learning environments suit them, and have long been an advocate of education reform. I'd push back pretty hard on the notion of structured versus unstructured learning as the most effective dichotomy, though (and I know you weren't suggesting it was, just go with me here a little...)

The same mini-you who seemed to find little value in classes, was also using books as a source of information and drinking them in like honey. Eating them like honey. Meh. In any case, you can't GET more structured than a book.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't think it was the structure of the lessons that was the real killer, it was more the method of delivery, the choice of content, and the lack of personal investment in topic choices. But there are other factors, like the social aspects of a classroom (some children are going to feel constrained by this), the tools on hand, the freedom to make mistakes, make messes, etc.

It gets pretty difficult to pick out aspects of this convoluted spaghetti, and point to it as the reason some children thrive outside a classroom, and others within. My most memorable teacher was a science, maths and computer geek, whilst I was always more drawn to language and history. But he found a way to make structured topics, with right and wrong answers into ways to challenge traditional concepts, and to make us realise the universe was big, and learning and discovery was more important than 'knowledge'.

My point here...well, it's not to poo-poo the OP, since I think there was a lot of validity there. But it's worth considering the same basic arguments less from a 'structured' vs 'unstructured' viewpoint, and more from a 'externally-directed' vs 'self-directed' viewpoint. Some people want agency in their learning, and in their knowledge, whilst others want the exact opposite.

I don't think this would readily tie to views about theism, in truth. But I suspect it would pretty readily connect to concepts of religion, and also perhaps to certain political and cultural norms.
For example, I wonder how the concepts identified in the OP relate to general rebelliousness against ones parents, or association with counter-culture, or...I dunno...

*ponders*

This is where my post falls into incoherence a little, but I'll keep thinking...lol

Thank you for an informative and thought-provoking post, Dave. I very much appreciate the effort you so clearly put into it.

I will need to think about it to be certain, but based on your post, I suspect I could have done a better job with my choice of terms. Or, at least with defining them. Especially with my use of that word "structure". We seem to be defining it in two different ways, and I believe that is most likely my fault. Alas! It is too late now to go back and re-write the OP, and I think it would take a major rewrite to make much of a difference.

Here's what happened. I didn't borrow the word "structured" from education so much as from business management. Last time I was current on that topic was 30 years ago. Back then it was common to speak of "employees who need a well-structured work environment" vs "employees who need a less-structured work environment". The former require a lot more rules, closer supervision, and a whole lot of stuff I have forgotten about. But if the term -- or at least if the idea -- is still being bandied about in the business world, I suspect you would know more about it than I ever did, given your current work as a business consultant.

As for the notion that some students need to be allowed the freedom to roam and wander all day long from topic to topic,etc. that comes from my readings about how education is practiced in the US -- at least, in the larger communities and school districts. Sometimes the kids are even segregated into different schools, as is the case in Denver, and to a lesser extent here in Colorado Springs. When I began reading up on the topic ten or so years ago, I was thunderstruck by their descriptions of what boys were likely to do if they needed the freedom to roam, but were placed in the wrong environment. Thunderstruck because it was like they describing me right down to my toenails. Girls have their own problematic behaviors when misplaced. But the boys act just like I did.

At any rate, an excellent post. Thanks, again. I owe you yet another beer.