[more ...]
"Good article in Slate on disparities in health care policy
Saturday, August 15, 2009
How to fix racial disparities in medical care.
How to fix racial disparities in medical care.: "Black Americans live shorter lives and have poorer health outcomes when compared with whites. Health researchers, depending on their political persuasion, explain this disparity in one of two ways, neither of which is very constructive.
[more ...]
"
Good article in Slate on disparities in health care policy
[more ...]
"Good article in Slate on disparities in health care policy
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Chris Johnson's Blog Post
In my eyes, rights are the foundational reasoning that society has order. Plenty of social issues are arisen through rights movements. Because of this, rights prove to be crucial, not only for socialization to flourish, but for our liberty and equality as well. For example, if there weren’t certain rights that people were eligible for, their liberty and equality rights would potentially be threatened. Throughout the rights process, there are many different ways that a group or certain individual can go about making their rights effectively heard and influenced among others. In Policy Paradox, Stone talks about the process in which rights are manifested; in a case such as disability rights, procedural right action is required to make something of the actual “right” in order for it to be enforced. To take this a step further, depending upon where the actual right is formed into some kind of a policy will determine how focused the new policy is. For example, Stone also states that “the constitution and federal laws are the most potent vehicles for establishing rights, because they apply to all citizens.” On the contrary, state and local governments could potentially focus the certain policy upon the citizens, in just the particular state, more efficiently. So yes, the federal law may affect more people in general but the quality or enforcement may be overlooked more than it will if it were a state law. I think that a state policy is more focused and directly affects the people more because it is not implemented among so many people as it would be if it were a federal law. Another reason for state law being more focused is that the particular issue is agreed upon within the state which means that it will have more meaning to the state itself. For example, if a federal policy were to be passed tomorrow that bans farmers from driving tractors on city streets without special permits , it would most likely be regulated efficiently only in the states with a high farming population. In other words, it would not be a major problem in some states so it would not be regulated as thoroughly.
Most of the time there is already some sort of law, rule or regulation concerning the particular issue but not necessarily meeting the desired needs of the “advocate” who wants to change them. This is why nominative rights in this day and age mostly consist of existing policy enhancements. Because of this, policies are constantly being refined in order to be more constitutional, possibly. Since “rights” have such a dominant influence upon rules, laws and regulations, it is exceptionally important that they are constitutional, in a way, to everybody. This may simply explain why gay marriage is not legal to this day. Of course, the main conflicts between these issues are between religions and civil rights, which may be the primary reason this policy has yet to pass in California. Because it affects the majority of the population, possibly because of beliefs, it may not be considered to be constitutional. This example shows how important it is for a right to be considered constitutional, not only by the government, but by the people as well. I guess it could be said that this is the beauty of a democracy.
Most of the time there is already some sort of law, rule or regulation concerning the particular issue but not necessarily meeting the desired needs of the “advocate” who wants to change them. This is why nominative rights in this day and age mostly consist of existing policy enhancements. Because of this, policies are constantly being refined in order to be more constitutional, possibly. Since “rights” have such a dominant influence upon rules, laws and regulations, it is exceptionally important that they are constitutional, in a way, to everybody. This may simply explain why gay marriage is not legal to this day. Of course, the main conflicts between these issues are between religions and civil rights, which may be the primary reason this policy has yet to pass in California. Because it affects the majority of the population, possibly because of beliefs, it may not be considered to be constitutional. This example shows how important it is for a right to be considered constitutional, not only by the government, but by the people as well. I guess it could be said that this is the beauty of a democracy.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Chris Johnson's questions
1.) Do you think this organization concerns nominative rights or positive rights? why or why not? and what tools do you see these advocates using to make their rights movement effective? which do you think are most useful for a rights movement?
2.) In what ways do you think nominative rights influence policy decisions? do you think these decisions are beneficial to our society? why? Examples: no Gay marriage, marijuana being illegal, the Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent), freedom of speech...
2.) In what ways do you think nominative rights influence policy decisions? do you think these decisions are beneficial to our society? why? Examples: no Gay marriage, marijuana being illegal, the Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent), freedom of speech...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Facts - by Ian Hooper
In Chapter 13 Stone discusses, “ The Two Faces of Persuasion.” She says that persuasion is the least understood of all human behaviors. She also says that conflict is derived from ignorance, rather than fundamental difference or interests. In the 1790’s almanacs were created as a “solution” to conflict. The rational ideal led to many policy ideas based on rational persuasion-this includes things such as campaigns aimed to; wear you seat belt, or recycle trash. This ration ideal is essentially a vision where conflict is solved by discussion through logic. This intern creates a harmonious society for humans.
The true colors of persuasion can be captured in two words- “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” Indoctrination has two things that separate it from the rational ideal, the first being it is used to manipulate and serve someone’s else’s interests rather than your own. It also takes away peoples ability to think independently. Charles Lindblom on the other hand says that persuasion only plays a large role in totalitarian systems; he calls this political system a “ preceptoral system.” This system is the polar opposite of rational idea. An individual in the rational ideal is free to make their own decisions based on accurate information, where in the preceptoral system you are essentially a puppet, where you listen to others thoughts rather than formulating your own.
The main debate regarding persuasion as a form of control in public policy is where to draw the line. Persuasion can be viewed in two different ways- for example; “Information” can be used as propaganda, but on the other hand it can be used to “enlighten.” The boundary between these two sides of persuasion is blurred, so there is no real definite answer to that. She describes the area in between these two sides as the “terrain of influence.”
When it comes to making facts in the polis Stone describes the rational ideal as the existence of neutral facts,” neutral in the sense that they are not used to promote persuasive force. However there are no independent facts because they are dressed with words and numbers. Naming, just like rule making is classification, which makes it a political act. Stone then goes onto talk about the left and right wing perspectives, and how they convey their messages to influence how we interpret certain things. Her example was how we view terrorism in other country’s to be carried out by left-wing rebels, but here we would see similar acts as “security measures.”
The true colors of persuasion can be captured in two words- “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” Indoctrination has two things that separate it from the rational ideal, the first being it is used to manipulate and serve someone’s else’s interests rather than your own. It also takes away peoples ability to think independently. Charles Lindblom on the other hand says that persuasion only plays a large role in totalitarian systems; he calls this political system a “ preceptoral system.” This system is the polar opposite of rational idea. An individual in the rational ideal is free to make their own decisions based on accurate information, where in the preceptoral system you are essentially a puppet, where you listen to others thoughts rather than formulating your own.
The main debate regarding persuasion as a form of control in public policy is where to draw the line. Persuasion can be viewed in two different ways- for example; “Information” can be used as propaganda, but on the other hand it can be used to “enlighten.” The boundary between these two sides of persuasion is blurred, so there is no real definite answer to that. She describes the area in between these two sides as the “terrain of influence.”
When it comes to making facts in the polis Stone describes the rational ideal as the existence of neutral facts,” neutral in the sense that they are not used to promote persuasive force. However there are no independent facts because they are dressed with words and numbers. Naming, just like rule making is classification, which makes it a political act. Stone then goes onto talk about the left and right wing perspectives, and how they convey their messages to influence how we interpret certain things. Her example was how we view terrorism in other country’s to be carried out by left-wing rebels, but here we would see similar acts as “security measures.”
Ian Hooper's questions
1. Where do we as society draw the line as to what we should believe? And how does the “terrain of influence” impact what we perceive as right and wrong?
2. At what point does information become propaganda? And where do we draw the boundaries of persuasion.
2. At what point does information become propaganda? And where do we draw the boundaries of persuasion.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Andrew D's Questions for Monday
1) What do you think the proper balance of formal rules and discretion in the design of governments would be? How much should government officials be bound by formal rules, and how much should they apply their wisdom to individual situations?
2) When “rules of thumb” of enforcers become common knowledge, and individuals know what they can get away with, does this ultimately help=2 0or harm the overall good of the community?
2) When “rules of thumb” of enforcers become common knowledge, and individuals know what they can get away with, does this ultimately help=2 0or harm the overall good of the community?
Rules by Andrew D.
In Deborah Stone’s chapter this week she discusses Rules. How they work, what makes for good ones, and how they are implemented in the Polis.
Basically, rules work as indirect commands stated once to the general people to whom they apply, rather that to an individual in a particular situation where a certain rule may apply. They gain their power through their image of legitimacy, and this is when they work best. Generally, rules have two parts; they dictate what must be done in certain situations or contexts. They do this by classifying; creating differences and in turn, consequences of those differences. Rules include and exclude people and their ac tivities and therefore establish two groups; the privileged and nonprivileged.
Good rules are made by having a balance of precision and flexibility. In regards to precision, rules must: ensure that like cases are treated alike, protect people from the prejudices and personal opinions of officials, and provide predictability (by telling people what is allowed and what will happen if the rules are broken). I especially liked the quote, “Being able to choose one’s actions with knowledge of the consequences is part of what we mean by freedom.” On the other hand, vague rules can be flexible and allow sensitivity to differences. However, they then require individuals with knowledge and expertise of local conditions to choose how to carry out the general goals. The ideal would be to have an optimum social balance, but this is of course impossible because of the differing context of every situation as earlier mentioned.
Stone also mentions other unattainable ideals, such as, the perfectly precise rule, the perfectly flexible rule, the perfectly enforced rule and the neutral rule. The perfectly enforced rules are highly related to precise rules, in that consequences would be almost automatic and require no discretion from an official. A neutral rule would be a rule that affects everybody the same and thus creates no advantages or disadvantages. While none of these can be achieved, they provide models for us to follow and strive for.
Finally, the chapter talks about how rules are made and used in the Polis. Problems in the Polis are often too complex for rules to be perfectly detailed, as a result rules are usually purposefully vague in order to please many. But a rule can never please everyone in the Polis, a rule of such flexibility would have to be so vague, that it really wouldn’t be a rule at all. Rules in the Polis can never be perfectly enforced. Enforcers are usually people that are influenced by other things besides their official responsibilities. And because rules are never perfectly precise, and often too many violations to handle, enforcers use their rule of thumb to decide consequences.
In the Polis, the power of rules is achieved through their legitamcy, which is gained through their goal to attain perfectly precise, perfectly enforced, and neutral rules. Such rules, would ensure that every individual receives their due. But at the same time, individuals demand their government to pay attention to particular context and thus informal, flexible rules help connect the two requirements.
Basically, rules work as indirect commands stated once to the general people to whom they apply, rather that to an individual in a particular situation where a certain rule may apply. They gain their power through their image of legitimacy, and this is when they work best. Generally, rules have two parts; they dictate what must be done in certain situations or contexts. They do this by classifying; creating differences and in turn, consequences of those differences. Rules include and exclude people and their ac tivities and therefore establish two groups; the privileged and nonprivileged.
Good rules are made by having a balance of precision and flexibility. In regards to precision, rules must: ensure that like cases are treated alike, protect people from the prejudices and personal opinions of officials, and provide predictability (by telling people what is allowed and what will happen if the rules are broken). I especially liked the quote, “Being able to choose one’s actions with knowledge of the consequences is part of what we mean by freedom.” On the other hand, vague rules can be flexible and allow sensitivity to differences. However, they then require individuals with knowledge and expertise of local conditions to choose how to carry out the general goals. The ideal would be to have an optimum social balance, but this is of course impossible because of the differing context of every situation as earlier mentioned.
Stone also mentions other unattainable ideals, such as, the perfectly precise rule, the perfectly flexible rule, the perfectly enforced rule and the neutral rule. The perfectly enforced rules are highly related to precise rules, in that consequences would be almost automatic and require no discretion from an official. A neutral rule would be a rule that affects everybody the same and thus creates no advantages or disadvantages. While none of these can be achieved, they provide models for us to follow and strive for.
Finally, the chapter talks about how rules are made and used in the Polis. Problems in the Polis are often too complex for rules to be perfectly detailed, as a result rules are usually purposefully vague in order to please many. But a rule can never please everyone in the Polis, a rule of such flexibility would have to be so vague, that it really wouldn’t be a rule at all. Rules in the Polis can never be perfectly enforced. Enforcers are usually people that are influenced by other things besides their official responsibilities. And because rules are never perfectly precise, and often too many violations to handle, enforcers use their rule of thumb to decide consequences.
In the Polis, the power of rules is achieved through their legitamcy, which is gained through their goal to attain perfectly precise, perfectly enforced, and neutral rules. Such rules, would ensure that every individual receives their due. But at the same time, individuals demand their government to pay attention to particular context and thus informal, flexible rules help connect the two requirements.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Ryne Thomas' Questions
1)"...the dimensions of human activity we care about are always far more
numerous and complex than what can be captured in formal rules, so rules
always contain escape hatches." Which rules tend to have more loopholes
(precise rules, flexible rules, neutral rules...)?
2)If rules of thumb(police officer gives you a cushion of 10 mph)directly
affect formal rules (law), what prevents people from using rules of thumb
for their defense in such cases as a 10 mph traffic violation, in a court
case. Stone explains in the last few pages of the chapter what happens
when people go by the book, instead of what is normally tollerated.
numerous and complex than what can be captured in formal rules, so rules
always contain escape hatches." Which rules tend to have more loopholes
(precise rules, flexible rules, neutral rules...)?
2)If rules of thumb(police officer gives you a cushion of 10 mph)directly
affect formal rules (law), what prevents people from using rules of thumb
for their defense in such cases as a 10 mph traffic violation, in a court
case. Stone explains in the last few pages of the chapter what happens
when people go by the book, instead of what is normally tollerated.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Kirsten Nilsson's Blog Post
I come from a very small town in Vermont where Fair-trade products are in abundance. In small communities, customers stay loyal to their local farmers. Not just food products, art, furniture, textiles, jewelry, and clothing. It is more convenient to buy local goods than it is to travel out of the valley for a large selection of mass produced goods. So why not shop ethically in your own backyard, when its more convienent anyway? Moving to California was obviosuly a culture shock, a big difference is where Californian's buy their goods. Someone in Thousand Oaks goes to Ralphs and chooses from a variety of products, and someone in LA goes to Ralphs and chooses from the same selection. I am yet to find a good selection of fairtrade goods, a farmers market here and there, stands on the side of the road, but with a language barrier Im not to sure weather or not I am buying locally. Whole Foods does not equal fair trade, it is possible to find a few fair trade Items in there but most of thoes products have traveled hundreds of miles or more. Its apparent that finding these fair trade items is like a wild goose chase for me, so I rarely chase that goose. I don’t buy very many fairtrade products, mostly because of the convience.
Convience plays a huge role in a consumers mission, the shopper is looking for the most effiecnt way to get to the products they need. If supporting local farmers means driving even more than thirty minutes, forget it. A small percentage of people will make this journey when there is a perfectly “healthy” Whole Foods right down the road. With more information would consumers make this journey, just to make an ethical purchase? Dr Barnett said: "People actually seem very aware of these types of things, but often don't feel that they have the opportunities or resources to be able to buy Fairtrade products or ethically sourced goods. And it's not as simple as the consumer making a choice to buy an item that is ethically sound" I agree if it were more about making the decision to buy the Fair Trade products than we’d have a larger percent of people supporting local farmers. Its much more than this in most communities especially in citys, finding fair trade goods is like finding a needle in a hay stack.
Then why go to so much trouble to shop ethically? You want to live Ethically right. Just because it would be more convient to run over people on the cross walk to get where you are going faster, it doesn’t mean its ethical, therefor you probally wouldn't do that. Hitting pedestrains is “wrong”. So is buying products from strangers, from unknown regions, and supporting them, is wrong, when you could support your fellow countrymen and buy locally. It’s not just the ticket you can get for hitting a pedestrain or not yielding in a crosswalk, that keeps you from doing it, you don’t do it because it is not ethical. What is ethical though, is buying fair trade products, can society just do this because it is ethical, I think this has allready been proved as false. If fair trade had more perks/insentives more people would go that route. Not all perks are luxuries. Sometimes perks are the benefits your socity gets from acting in a certain way. Unfortuanatly these are not the insentives that people rush to resopond to.
Convience plays a huge role in a consumers mission, the shopper is looking for the most effiecnt way to get to the products they need. If supporting local farmers means driving even more than thirty minutes, forget it. A small percentage of people will make this journey when there is a perfectly “healthy” Whole Foods right down the road. With more information would consumers make this journey, just to make an ethical purchase? Dr Barnett said: "People actually seem very aware of these types of things, but often don't feel that they have the opportunities or resources to be able to buy Fairtrade products or ethically sourced goods. And it's not as simple as the consumer making a choice to buy an item that is ethically sound" I agree if it were more about making the decision to buy the Fair Trade products than we’d have a larger percent of people supporting local farmers. Its much more than this in most communities especially in citys, finding fair trade goods is like finding a needle in a hay stack.
Then why go to so much trouble to shop ethically? You want to live Ethically right. Just because it would be more convient to run over people on the cross walk to get where you are going faster, it doesn’t mean its ethical, therefor you probally wouldn't do that. Hitting pedestrains is “wrong”. So is buying products from strangers, from unknown regions, and supporting them, is wrong, when you could support your fellow countrymen and buy locally. It’s not just the ticket you can get for hitting a pedestrain or not yielding in a crosswalk, that keeps you from doing it, you don’t do it because it is not ethical. What is ethical though, is buying fair trade products, can society just do this because it is ethical, I think this has allready been proved as false. If fair trade had more perks/insentives more people would go that route. Not all perks are luxuries. Sometimes perks are the benefits your socity gets from acting in a certain way. Unfortuanatly these are not the insentives that people rush to resopond to.
Inducements
Inducements
By Brittney Martinelli
What caught my interest the most in Stone’s Eleventh chapter of “Public Policy” was her point on the emotional ties that evolve from the form of inducement used. There is no doubt that inducements, whether positive or negative, are very useful in the polis and in life but one of the major factors of the outcome of the inducement relies on what form is used. When it comes to negative inducements, even when the inducer gets the receiver to do what they what them to do or not do, the total effect may not always be the best for the receiver; therefore, in the long term, the inducement itself is not as effective.
When a punishment is threatened or carried out, the receiver of that punishment or threat of punishment feels automatic resentment toward the one (or force) giving it. This negative attitude creates hatred between the two groups or individuals that is often hard to overcome; such the violent behavior between police and criminals. This attitude also causes the receiver of the negative inducement to be more likely to repeat the wrong-doing. Good inducements however create feelings of loyalty and commitment. One that is given incentives either to do or not do certain things is more likely to learn from their mistakes in a positive manner and while doing so build ties with others. For example, when a small child says to another “I will let you play with my play dough if you let me play with your hot wheels”, they form a friendship and are likely to try this tactic on other children. Where as if the child had said “If you don’t let me play with your hot wheels, I’m going to eat all of your play dough”, the inducement would not only be most likely ineffective, but the two children will probably hate each other all through elementary school. Of
course if a reward is promised and then not given out, this theory back
fires.
There are certain cases were penalties are undeniably needed. Like Michael Moore said in response to one of my questions: punishments should be used to get people to not do what you do not want them to and rewards should be used to get people to do what you want them to do. There is no way around the fact that if there were only incentives in the world and punishments did not exist, our society would be chaotic. We simply cannot motivate murderers, rapists or thieves to stop their crimes by offering them money or other valuables. My point in this post is that penalties are absolutely essential for major offenses but, for the situations where there is a
choice between using positive or negative inducements, positive inducements are longer lasting and better for our society as a whole.
By Brittney Martinelli
What caught my interest the most in Stone’s Eleventh chapter of “Public Policy” was her point on the emotional ties that evolve from the form of inducement used. There is no doubt that inducements, whether positive or negative, are very useful in the polis and in life but one of the major factors of the outcome of the inducement relies on what form is used. When it comes to negative inducements, even when the inducer gets the receiver to do what they what them to do or not do, the total effect may not always be the best for the receiver; therefore, in the long term, the inducement itself is not as effective.
When a punishment is threatened or carried out, the receiver of that punishment or threat of punishment feels automatic resentment toward the one (or force) giving it. This negative attitude creates hatred between the two groups or individuals that is often hard to overcome; such the violent behavior between police and criminals. This attitude also causes the receiver of the negative inducement to be more likely to repeat the wrong-doing. Good inducements however create feelings of loyalty and commitment. One that is given incentives either to do or not do certain things is more likely to learn from their mistakes in a positive manner and while doing so build ties with others. For example, when a small child says to another “I will let you play with my play dough if you let me play with your hot wheels”, they form a friendship and are likely to try this tactic on other children. Where as if the child had said “If you don’t let me play with your hot wheels, I’m going to eat all of your play dough”, the inducement would not only be most likely ineffective, but the two children will probably hate each other all through elementary school. Of
course if a reward is promised and then not given out, this theory back
fires.
There are certain cases were penalties are undeniably needed. Like Michael Moore said in response to one of my questions: punishments should be used to get people to not do what you do not want them to and rewards should be used to get people to do what you want them to do. There is no way around the fact that if there were only incentives in the world and punishments did not exist, our society would be chaotic. We simply cannot motivate murderers, rapists or thieves to stop their crimes by offering them money or other valuables. My point in this post is that penalties are absolutely essential for major offenses but, for the situations where there is a
choice between using positive or negative inducements, positive inducements are longer lasting and better for our society as a whole.
Neil Sampson's Essay
When speaking on issues through out the political world there always arises the question are by which what are the effects? The discussion soon branches off into mini questions like Who is affected? In What way? Do they know it ? If so what do they know about it ? and there is always two sides to the story. Stone states that the two sides of the story in politics are said to be “interests” basically interests are groups that have a stake in an issue or are affected by it. Interest groups are affected and the way that they react to what has occurred can shape and persuade public officials to act or vote according to a group members interests. Stone discusses two key interests and I will speak more in depth on each of them to prove that they are affected and how mobilization works in the Polis. The first interest is Objective interest. Stone stated it as “Objective interests are those effects that actually impinge on people, regardless of peoples awareness of them; subjective interest are of course, those things that people believe affect them. I feel this can be seen as how exactly both interest groups are. Subjective Objective interests are ones that physically and mentally crack down on you and you are very aware of what is going on as to Objective interest are things that are effecting the whole society as a whole but people aren’t aware that it is affecting them.” People might be affected but not directly know that its happening to the. For example if someone was charging you more then you really thought you were paying for its seen as lack of awareness and lack of consciousness, in stones ready objective interest are seen in that political view also. Although that one may not know they are being effected there are the ones who are not affected by something but still believe they are this can denoted in Stones book as mistaken belief or false consciousness. For example someone’s car brakes down due to a bad engine, one may blame their own fatigue or slow response time for the accident but in reality it’s the mechanical problem in the car. Although subjective and objective interests are different they are seen to be linked in their own ways. Subjective interests are not ever given but they occur by the way in which life chances are objectively affected by objective conditions. I think that part of the objective interest aren’t good because when people are blinded from the truth and figure things out later then sooner it is almost like its too late to change things. For example people who became addicted to a drug were brain washed, and when they finally hooked on it to where it’s too late. Although I don’t agree with that part I agree that there should be things or a policy that meets peoples essential humans, and serves for the community as a whole. I feel that things should be for the whole as community and not for jus the self. Things work better when everyone as a whole is happy, majority can make better decisions when everyone is satisfied, when the entire society is pleased and people know about what’s going on it helps for a more functional and more working society. When knowing interest they must be understood and one must know that a group with outstanding individuals and a group of people who praise their self as a one and makes decisions for the one not the whole does not function like a group that has interests for the fundamental individual and more class based ideas , in addition to group representation is more necessary for a interest group. As we read on in Chapter 9 we see how mobilization plays a large roll when making interest in the Polis. Mobilization can be seen the process by which effects and experiences are converted into organized efforts to bring about change. A mobilization can be seen as a good thing in society because it supports collective action and social contact. I think this is very important in today’s society and policy because when people express their feelings and everyone’s voice is heard everyone ends up happy at the end of the day because everyone got a say in the decision. With more ideas and relationships built the network becomes a more widespread and open free flowing society as to one that has to have everything approved by one sole member. I think there is a bigger influence when. With more ideas and relationships built the network becomes a more widespread and open free flowing society as to one that has to have everything approved by one sole member. I think there is a bigger influence when you have mobilization rather then not having it. In conclusion it think interest can play an extremely good roll in today’s society although there are a few flaws I have showed most of the positive feeds interest groups bring out in a society.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Kirsten Nillson's Questions
1Why is it that it takes either insentitives or conesquences to persuade certain people/or groups to act in a way they normally wouldnt? And what does Cooperation have to do with these Iducements?
2What insentives would it take for you to commit to only fairtrade products? Explain why Fairtrade products would be more ethical, and how ethics relates to what most people do regarding fair trade.
2What insentives would it take for you to commit to only fairtrade products? Explain why Fairtrade products would be more ethical, and how ethics relates to what most people do regarding fair trade.
Brittney Martinelli's Questions
1. in your opinion, which is the more effective way to motivate the people of society? the incentive pay systems(rewards) method or the economic sanctions (penalty) method?
2. In the New York Times magazine article "A Payoff out of Poverty?", the Oportunidaes program was a huge success in Paso de Coyutla, Mexico. Despite the strict traditions that had been going on for decades, the program established there was greeted by the citizens with open arms and change happened rapidly. Oportunidades is now one of the most-studied social programs on the planet. If it is such an accomplishment why then is it not having the same effect on the poor in New York?
2. In the New York Times magazine article "A Payoff out of Poverty?", the Oportunidaes program was a huge success in Paso de Coyutla, Mexico. Despite the strict traditions that had been going on for decades, the program established there was greeted by the citizens with open arms and change happened rapidly. Oportunidades is now one of the most-studied social programs on the planet. If it is such an accomplishment why then is it not having the same effect on the poor in New York?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Interests in the Policy Process
by Jordana Bradburn
While reading the chapter on interests I really picked up on the idea of subjective and objective interests. I think that when our interests are subjective we become really passionate about the topic at hand because we are directly affected. Whether we are correct or not in believing our interests truly do affect us. I found this to be a really important chapter because this is what connects the average Joe to the political world. No matter who you are, you have interests that are subjective to you. Even as a teenager you find policies that affect you and you take a stand on them. I feel that sometimes though it is almost danger for the general public to have so many subjective interests. Even though we feel that certain policies affect us directly we aren’t always one hundred percent aware of the true history of these particular policies as well as how they actually do affect us.
Making interests in the polis I think is important as well. With National Healthcare we see that the story or politics behind the issue can be the same, but the interests of different groups show through differently. Take doctors, they hear that prices will have ceilings and be regulated, this is something that they don’t want to happen so they take an active stance to make sure that this doesn’t happen. National Healthcare isn’t in the best interests of the doctors. However, when people who are of lower class hear that prices on health services will be regulated they take an active stance to try and make this happen.
The chapter also made me think on how people make interest subjective to them. Stone’s reading said subjective interests are those that people BELIEVE to affect them. We formulate opinions on different things not always based on how it actual affects us but how we believe it to affect us because when asked your stance on a policy people expect you to come back with something more than “Oh it doesn’t affect me, I don’t have an opinion.” Topics such as abortion and capital punishment aren’t exactly issues that directly affect us all but, I’m sure anyone you talk to takes a stance on those topics as if it is an actual subjective interest in their life. I strongly believe that when the general public becomes overwhelmed with topics they believe to affect them they let the ones that actually do pass them by. People seem to be more interested in huge national issues that may never have any reach to them instead of those little things about your city that appear on our voting ballots. I know for my personal self that I educate myself more on the things that I feel I should know more about because that’s what society calls for then being
educated in the ones I really need to be even though they are smaller and may only pertain to the people that live in the same city or state.
While reading the chapter on interests I really picked up on the idea of subjective and objective interests. I think that when our interests are subjective we become really passionate about the topic at hand because we are directly affected. Whether we are correct or not in believing our interests truly do affect us. I found this to be a really important chapter because this is what connects the average Joe to the political world. No matter who you are, you have interests that are subjective to you. Even as a teenager you find policies that affect you and you take a stand on them. I feel that sometimes though it is almost danger for the general public to have so many subjective interests. Even though we feel that certain policies affect us directly we aren’t always one hundred percent aware of the true history of these particular policies as well as how they actually do affect us.
Making interests in the polis I think is important as well. With National Healthcare we see that the story or politics behind the issue can be the same, but the interests of different groups show through differently. Take doctors, they hear that prices will have ceilings and be regulated, this is something that they don’t want to happen so they take an active stance to make sure that this doesn’t happen. National Healthcare isn’t in the best interests of the doctors. However, when people who are of lower class hear that prices on health services will be regulated they take an active stance to try and make this happen.
The chapter also made me think on how people make interest subjective to them. Stone’s reading said subjective interests are those that people BELIEVE to affect them. We formulate opinions on different things not always based on how it actual affects us but how we believe it to affect us because when asked your stance on a policy people expect you to come back with something more than “Oh it doesn’t affect me, I don’t have an opinion.” Topics such as abortion and capital punishment aren’t exactly issues that directly affect us all but, I’m sure anyone you talk to takes a stance on those topics as if it is an actual subjective interest in their life. I strongly believe that when the general public becomes overwhelmed with topics they believe to affect them they let the ones that actually do pass them by. People seem to be more interested in huge national issues that may never have any reach to them instead of those little things about your city that appear on our voting ballots. I know for my personal self that I educate myself more on the things that I feel I should know more about because that’s what society calls for then being
educated in the ones I really need to be even though they are smaller and may only pertain to the people that live in the same city or state.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Questions from Jordana and Neil
Jordana
1. How do you think objective and subjective interests influence peoples
automatic translation from their passive situation into an active stance?
2. Do you think giving your child up for adoption would have an inherent
effect which from Stone's reading would be an objective interest or would
it be considered a subjective interest which would directly effect the
child?
Neil
1. How do the politics behind the proposal of nationally provided
healthcare shape and influence different groups perceptions on the issue?
2. Do you feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct? Why
or why not. It states: the interests of small minorities intensely
affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
1. How do you think objective and subjective interests influence peoples
automatic translation from their passive situation into an active stance?
2. Do you think giving your child up for adoption would have an inherent
effect which from Stone's reading would be an objective interest or would
it be considered a subjective interest which would directly effect the
child?
Neil
1. How do the politics behind the proposal of nationally provided
healthcare shape and influence different groups perceptions on the issue?
2. Do you feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct? Why
or why not. It states: the interests of small minorities intensely
affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Who is to Blame for the Cause the Government or the People?
By: Tyler Ingley
When considering who is to blame for the cause of something I believe that the higher order or the government is to be held responsible for whatever cause happens whether it be positive or negative. They are the ones who make the causes whether they are unguided or purposeful. Stone stated that whenever an action is committed there is an outcome and it may be positive or negative. Since the government makes these decisions then they are to blame for the outcome or be praised if it is a positive outcome. Stone discussed for types of causes and I will elaborate on each of them to prove how the government or the higher authorities are responsible for the causes. The first is mechanical cause. It is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. For example, the media often displays advertisements on unhealthy foods. When we as a society watch television many people buy into this and it causes us to go out and by the unhealthy foods which ultimately leads to malnutrition. The higher authority here is the people who allow these advertisements to be aired, therefore they are to blame. Mechanical causes try to brainwash people and the government try's to in a sense brainwash its voters into buying into their policies. The second cause are intentional causes. These are defined as when causes that lay the blame directly at someone's feet. Either someone acted in order to bring about the consequences, or someone acted even though they knew what the outcome was going to be. This cause again proves that government is solely responsible for the causes that happen because they have the power to intentionally put into effect what they want, whether the outcome is positive or negative is 100% up to them, not the society. The third type of causes are inadvertent causes. At first they may not seem like the government is responsible for them because they often are unforeseen side effects in a policy, however it is due to their carelessness that the side effect came to be so again they are responsible for what has occurred. A well constructed example of this is a policy that at first was well intended but the consequences came about later and ultimately the policy turned negative and the government is blamed again. The fourth and final cause is accidental. The reason I chose to do this one last is because it is the only cause that has the least amount of blame on either the government or the people. Accidental causes are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Stone states that politically this is a good place to retreat if one is
being charged with responsibility because accidental causes are that of fate. No one can control fate, only God and most of the time it is not a wise decision to include God when you are introducing policies or are running for a campaign, simply because the idea of religion and government mixed together is something that is fading away more and more. Anyways, back to the reason the government can still be held responsible for accidental causes is because they are responsible for the aftermath of the tragedy. Many people blamed the government for not acting quick enough when Hurricane Katrina hit, later reports confirmed that the government knew how big the storm was and should have evacuated the entire area, but did not. In this example they are to blame for the cause, even though Hurricane Katrina was an accident. A question that came to mind when reading about all the causes is what "caused" the economy to be in the state that it is currently in. Was it intentional cause? Or was it a complete accident? Or even inadvertant? In my opinion I think that it was a matter of avoidable ignorance. I think they could have taken precautions to avoid it like, stopping the funding for Iraq way sooner. It has cost us a ridiculous amount of money which has put into a massive amount of debt. The housing market is another reason as well, shady loan sharks gave out loans that at first seemed like a viable option for American families to buy their first homes, but later were screwed because of it. In the end our government is solely responsible for the causes that are implemented into our society, that is why we vote to put them in office, because we expect them to perform so that our country stays on top.
When considering who is to blame for the cause of something I believe that the higher order or the government is to be held responsible for whatever cause happens whether it be positive or negative. They are the ones who make the causes whether they are unguided or purposeful. Stone stated that whenever an action is committed there is an outcome and it may be positive or negative. Since the government makes these decisions then they are to blame for the outcome or be praised if it is a positive outcome. Stone discussed for types of causes and I will elaborate on each of them to prove how the government or the higher authorities are responsible for the causes. The first is mechanical cause. It is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. For example, the media often displays advertisements on unhealthy foods. When we as a society watch television many people buy into this and it causes us to go out and by the unhealthy foods which ultimately leads to malnutrition. The higher authority here is the people who allow these advertisements to be aired, therefore they are to blame. Mechanical causes try to brainwash people and the government try's to in a sense brainwash its voters into buying into their policies. The second cause are intentional causes. These are defined as when causes that lay the blame directly at someone's feet. Either someone acted in order to bring about the consequences, or someone acted even though they knew what the outcome was going to be. This cause again proves that government is solely responsible for the causes that happen because they have the power to intentionally put into effect what they want, whether the outcome is positive or negative is 100% up to them, not the society. The third type of causes are inadvertent causes. At first they may not seem like the government is responsible for them because they often are unforeseen side effects in a policy, however it is due to their carelessness that the side effect came to be so again they are responsible for what has occurred. A well constructed example of this is a policy that at first was well intended but the consequences came about later and ultimately the policy turned negative and the government is blamed again. The fourth and final cause is accidental. The reason I chose to do this one last is because it is the only cause that has the least amount of blame on either the government or the people. Accidental causes are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Stone states that politically this is a good place to retreat if one is
being charged with responsibility because accidental causes are that of fate. No one can control fate, only God and most of the time it is not a wise decision to include God when you are introducing policies or are running for a campaign, simply because the idea of religion and government mixed together is something that is fading away more and more. Anyways, back to the reason the government can still be held responsible for accidental causes is because they are responsible for the aftermath of the tragedy. Many people blamed the government for not acting quick enough when Hurricane Katrina hit, later reports confirmed that the government knew how big the storm was and should have evacuated the entire area, but did not. In this example they are to blame for the cause, even though Hurricane Katrina was an accident. A question that came to mind when reading about all the causes is what "caused" the economy to be in the state that it is currently in. Was it intentional cause? Or was it a complete accident? Or even inadvertant? In my opinion I think that it was a matter of avoidable ignorance. I think they could have taken precautions to avoid it like, stopping the funding for Iraq way sooner. It has cost us a ridiculous amount of money which has put into a massive amount of debt. The housing market is another reason as well, shady loan sharks gave out loans that at first seemed like a viable option for American families to buy their first homes, but later were screwed because of it. In the end our government is solely responsible for the causes that are implemented into our society, that is why we vote to put them in office, because we expect them to perform so that our country stays on top.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Natural vs. Social
by Stephen Chafi
There are two view points for interpreting the world these days. The natural world and the social world. Both of these worlds are different but still result in something happening. The results can be as small as an argument between two people or as big as a hurricane. The point being that even if these two worlds are different they both effect our world and how we live in it. But which of the two effect us more in the current time we live in?
In any view points of the world, things happen that is out of our control. The natural world view point focuses on occurrences to be undirected or out of our control. In the Stone book, they use the example of a cold front hitting a warm front. A storm occurs and can destroy everything it touches. It could destroy people homes and lives, but there is no willful intention of that. No human made that storm and focused it on the town to destroy it. It was a natural occurrences out of anybodies control. The natural world is made of fate, chance, and unforeseen accidents. Some my choose to believe that there is a higher being that does all of this for a reason, but the fact remains that it is still out of our hands. As a community we accept the fact that stuff is going to happen that is beyond our control and do our best to work around it.
Now on the other side of the spectrum; we have the social world. The social world is directly influenced by human will. This world is not based of chance, instead it is based off control and intent. To understand it completely, one must understand that you must be able to identify the motives of a group or person and link them with there actions to understand what they want. Because of this we can influence people many ways. This includes flattering, bribing, threatening, helping, fighting, and loving. People use these things to change the course of events so they can benefit our needs more. In the social world, there is no chance or random accidents; there is only what we do to influence people.
So the question comes up, which of the two effects us more in the current world. I believe that both co-exist. There are things in this world that we cant control like hurricanes. But think about after the hurricanes, we choose to send more money to those states hit hard and help rebuild what they lost. We use the social view to solve the things we can not control. With out one, I do not think that the other would exist. We as people are just going to have to live with what we can not control and then take advantage of the stuff we can control, and hope that it all works out for the best.
There are two view points for interpreting the world these days. The natural world and the social world. Both of these worlds are different but still result in something happening. The results can be as small as an argument between two people or as big as a hurricane. The point being that even if these two worlds are different they both effect our world and how we live in it. But which of the two effect us more in the current time we live in?
In any view points of the world, things happen that is out of our control. The natural world view point focuses on occurrences to be undirected or out of our control. In the Stone book, they use the example of a cold front hitting a warm front. A storm occurs and can destroy everything it touches. It could destroy people homes and lives, but there is no willful intention of that. No human made that storm and focused it on the town to destroy it. It was a natural occurrences out of anybodies control. The natural world is made of fate, chance, and unforeseen accidents. Some my choose to believe that there is a higher being that does all of this for a reason, but the fact remains that it is still out of our hands. As a community we accept the fact that stuff is going to happen that is beyond our control and do our best to work around it.
Now on the other side of the spectrum; we have the social world. The social world is directly influenced by human will. This world is not based of chance, instead it is based off control and intent. To understand it completely, one must understand that you must be able to identify the motives of a group or person and link them with there actions to understand what they want. Because of this we can influence people many ways. This includes flattering, bribing, threatening, helping, fighting, and loving. People use these things to change the course of events so they can benefit our needs more. In the social world, there is no chance or random accidents; there is only what we do to influence people.
So the question comes up, which of the two effects us more in the current world. I believe that both co-exist. There are things in this world that we cant control like hurricanes. But think about after the hurricanes, we choose to send more money to those states hit hard and help rebuild what they lost. We use the social view to solve the things we can not control. With out one, I do not think that the other would exist. We as people are just going to have to live with what we can not control and then take advantage of the stuff we can control, and hope that it all works out for the best.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Questions for Tomorrow, March 18
Stephen Chafi
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Symbols by Michael Moore
Although we as people use symbols every day, our most used and most
important symbol is our language. Written and spoken language is our main
source of communication (though technology is slowly diminishing that),
and without it we would have great confusion. But this unique ability to
communicate so effectively is what sets us apart from all other animals.
Another huge difference between humans and animals is our variety of
culture. And as Steven Pinker claims, our language is shaped by our
culture. This theory has been backed by many anthropologists who have
studied language structure in different communities and even tribes. We
as humans have put labels or words on every thing, idea, and concept, so
naturally we will use these symbols in such a way that expresses what is
important and what’s not so important in our culture. Studying the
language of any culture is a very effective way to learn about how the
people live. Pinker also points out that language is a reflection of
culture, instead of the culture being shaped by the language spoken. I
think it is interesting that the language or symbols we use are
constantly changing as long as our culture and way of life continues to
change and develop.
How can we live without symbols? Without them there is no way to
communicate or represent our thoughts and/or needs. Our language is a
complex set of symbols with a very particular set of rules that allow us
to express anything that we could think of. The words themselves are
symbols with a specific meaning as well as how we deliver the words to
whoever is listening. An example of this would be sarcasm. The literal
meaning of the sentence is usually very far off, if not the complete
opposite of, what the speaker is trying to say. I’m curious to see how
our society will change in future years and the effects it will take on
our language.
important symbol is our language. Written and spoken language is our main
source of communication (though technology is slowly diminishing that),
and without it we would have great confusion. But this unique ability to
communicate so effectively is what sets us apart from all other animals.
Another huge difference between humans and animals is our variety of
culture. And as Steven Pinker claims, our language is shaped by our
culture. This theory has been backed by many anthropologists who have
studied language structure in different communities and even tribes. We
as humans have put labels or words on every thing, idea, and concept, so
naturally we will use these symbols in such a way that expresses what is
important and what’s not so important in our culture. Studying the
language of any culture is a very effective way to learn about how the
people live. Pinker also points out that language is a reflection of
culture, instead of the culture being shaped by the language spoken. I
think it is interesting that the language or symbols we use are
constantly changing as long as our culture and way of life continues to
change and develop.
How can we live without symbols? Without them there is no way to
communicate or represent our thoughts and/or needs. Our language is a
complex set of symbols with a very particular set of rules that allow us
to express anything that we could think of. The words themselves are
symbols with a specific meaning as well as how we deliver the words to
whoever is listening. An example of this would be sarcasm. The literal
meaning of the sentence is usually very far off, if not the complete
opposite of, what the speaker is trying to say. I’m curious to see how
our society will change in future years and the effects it will take on
our language.
Michael Moore's Two Questions
Question 1: How do politicians use and manipulate symbols to control the population and/or get what they want?
Question 2: Humans are creatures that have used symbols for as long as we have been alive. What causes us to use symbols? Why are they so essential to a human society?
Question 2: Humans are creatures that have used symbols for as long as we have been alive. What causes us to use symbols? Why are they so essential to a human society?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Allison Wachtel's Two Questions
1. Can you identify any of the linguistic/rhetorical strategies that Stone mentions in any specific political speeches or philosophies? Which one(s) tend to move you most?
2. Do you think linguistic/rhetorical techniques have a legitimate place in political dialogue, campaigning, etc.? If not, what do you think our political system would look like if only the “trickle-up” theory were employed? Would it be more or less efficient?
2. Do you think linguistic/rhetorical techniques have a legitimate place in political dialogue, campaigning, etc.? If not, what do you think our political system would look like if only the “trickle-up” theory were employed? Would it be more or less efficient?
Symbols in Public Policy
by Allison Wachtel
Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?
Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.
Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?
Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Which is more important: Liberty or Security?
By Tyler Lee
The first thing that comes to mind for me when discussing the topic of
liberty and security is the US Patriot Act. I feel this is the most
relevant issue when discussing this topic and it is the most recent issue
in this discussion. This act, signed by former President Bush, gives law
enforcement agencies more freedom to search communication records and
financial records, and it gives them more freedom for using “big
brother-like” intelligence gathering. This act was created to “protect
the people” during a time of fear after September 11. The Patriot Act has
helped arrest and detain a few people before they have been able to commit
crimes. It can be said that it has raised security in America and
protected the nation. It can also be said that it has greatly taken away
our liberties. There are many innocent citizens that have been detained
without their constitutional rights, because the Patriot Act allows this
to occur. The act allows the government to tap phone lines, read e-mails,
and survey other forms of communication that would have otherwise been
kept private. In short, it has taken away the privacy of the individual.
The same privacy that our founding fathers made sure to give the citizens
in the Declaration of Independence when they use the word “liberty”.
One can argue that the Patriot Act protects life and builds extra
security. This idea of protecting “life” is also mentioned in the same
line in the Declaration as “liberty”. One must also note the last idea
mentioned in that line is the “pursuit of happiness”. When I think of the
idea of Liberty and Security in relation to the Declaration, I feel it is
important to use the idea of “pursuit of happiness”, to ask the question,
“Does raised security with less liberty, or raised liberty with less
security bring more happiness?” Personally, I think there needs to be a
balance. But there are people who believe in more security and there are
others who believe in more liberty.
Going back to the plan of the founding fathers, I think their idea was
more freedom for the individual. Do I think we are in the same situation
as we were in the 1700’s? No. I do not think that we can compare our
security and freedom then, to what it is now. In relation to freedom, we
had just broken away from the rule of England and were in the state of
mind that we were now free. In the present day, we have lived with the
idea of freedom for a few centuries. Also, I think our nation faces more
threats now than back in our country’s beginning. With the wars occurring
and the more dangerous weapons, security is a big issue that needs to be
covered. Although, I want there to be more freedom, I think it is
something that needs to be sacrificed to protect our safety as a nation,
and as individuals. I do think the Patriot Act is the wrong type of
security but I think America is trying.
In relation to this idea, one idea by Isaiah Berlin stood out to me.
Berlin’s central focus was individual freedom and how to protect it. To
me, it seems like security is the way to protect individual freedom. We
are a nation based on freedom and liberty. If we were to lose a war and
be taken over, we would lose our individual freedom. To protect ourselves
from this negative outcome, we must use security to remain safe. This is a
balance between liberty and security, and it would still protect our
individual freedom.
The first thing that comes to mind for me when discussing the topic of
liberty and security is the US Patriot Act. I feel this is the most
relevant issue when discussing this topic and it is the most recent issue
in this discussion. This act, signed by former President Bush, gives law
enforcement agencies more freedom to search communication records and
financial records, and it gives them more freedom for using “big
brother-like” intelligence gathering. This act was created to “protect
the people” during a time of fear after September 11. The Patriot Act has
helped arrest and detain a few people before they have been able to commit
crimes. It can be said that it has raised security in America and
protected the nation. It can also be said that it has greatly taken away
our liberties. There are many innocent citizens that have been detained
without their constitutional rights, because the Patriot Act allows this
to occur. The act allows the government to tap phone lines, read e-mails,
and survey other forms of communication that would have otherwise been
kept private. In short, it has taken away the privacy of the individual.
The same privacy that our founding fathers made sure to give the citizens
in the Declaration of Independence when they use the word “liberty”.
One can argue that the Patriot Act protects life and builds extra
security. This idea of protecting “life” is also mentioned in the same
line in the Declaration as “liberty”. One must also note the last idea
mentioned in that line is the “pursuit of happiness”. When I think of the
idea of Liberty and Security in relation to the Declaration, I feel it is
important to use the idea of “pursuit of happiness”, to ask the question,
“Does raised security with less liberty, or raised liberty with less
security bring more happiness?” Personally, I think there needs to be a
balance. But there are people who believe in more security and there are
others who believe in more liberty.
Going back to the plan of the founding fathers, I think their idea was
more freedom for the individual. Do I think we are in the same situation
as we were in the 1700’s? No. I do not think that we can compare our
security and freedom then, to what it is now. In relation to freedom, we
had just broken away from the rule of England and were in the state of
mind that we were now free. In the present day, we have lived with the
idea of freedom for a few centuries. Also, I think our nation faces more
threats now than back in our country’s beginning. With the wars occurring
and the more dangerous weapons, security is a big issue that needs to be
covered. Although, I want there to be more freedom, I think it is
something that needs to be sacrificed to protect our safety as a nation,
and as individuals. I do think the Patriot Act is the wrong type of
security but I think America is trying.
In relation to this idea, one idea by Isaiah Berlin stood out to me.
Berlin’s central focus was individual freedom and how to protect it. To
me, it seems like security is the way to protect individual freedom. We
are a nation based on freedom and liberty. If we were to lose a war and
be taken over, we would lose our individual freedom. To protect ourselves
from this negative outcome, we must use security to remain safe. This is a
balance between liberty and security, and it would still protect our
individual freedom.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Two Questions by Mr. Tyler Lee
1. Do you think America's form of liberty is closer to Berlin's idea of Positive Liberty or Negative Liberty? Explain your answer. How do you think America developed into this type of liberty? Do you think it is successful, or should it be changed?
2. Our founding fathers created our nation based on freedom and liberty. Do you think if they were alive now, they would be please with what America's freedom is now, or would they think America has given up too much freedom? Explain with some examples.
2. Our founding fathers created our nation based on freedom and liberty. Do you think if they were alive now, they would be please with what America's freedom is now, or would they think America has given up too much freedom? Explain with some examples.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Giving Up Freedom to Protect Freedom
by Ben Martinez
I know that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to politics and political concepts but when I think about liberty and freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one, I immediately think of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration which declared, as mentioned in the readings, that there exists a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must never be violated. They declared rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights or rights that are so undeniable that no one and especially no government can take them away. Although the founders declared all three to be inalienable, I occasionally wonder when I read that line whether they were intentionally listed in that order. Were they trying to tell us something? For example where they saying: you can limit the pursuit of happiness to ensure liberty and limit liberty to protect life? I don’t think they were but it raises an interesting topic of the balance between security and liberty.
In the readings Isaiah Berlin mentions the limits of freedom. He says that great thinkers have been asserting that if we had unlimited freedom, “because it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of 'natural' freedom would lead to social chaos in which men's minimum needs would not be satisfied”. He goes on to say that “they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself.” They would curtail ‘freedom’ in the interest of ‘freedom’.
Is it ever necessary to give up certain freedoms to preserve others? Before we can answer this question we must first decide what liberty and freedom mean? Well liberty can mean a lot of things, it can be the freedom to do a certain act without fear of danger or harm, it can be the freedom to receive the minimum resources necessary to reach ones own potential, or it can be the freedom to remain unobstructed and pursue your own happiness. This brings us back to the questions at hand; can free action be limited by law? Can it be protected by law? Does this even make sense? If you go with the last definition probably not, however I think that certain rules are necessary to protect free action. Without rules we would be reduced to chaos; however I feel that those rules can and should be instituted in a way that would maximize freedom and limit regulation. In writing our Constitution the founders set up a framework to protect freedom. In reading the preamble you hear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is clear to me that they felt that liberty can be protected by a set of rules.
In closing I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which I feel is relevant. The quote says “those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
I know that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to politics and political concepts but when I think about liberty and freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one, I immediately think of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration which declared, as mentioned in the readings, that there exists a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must never be violated. They declared rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights or rights that are so undeniable that no one and especially no government can take them away. Although the founders declared all three to be inalienable, I occasionally wonder when I read that line whether they were intentionally listed in that order. Were they trying to tell us something? For example where they saying: you can limit the pursuit of happiness to ensure liberty and limit liberty to protect life? I don’t think they were but it raises an interesting topic of the balance between security and liberty.
In the readings Isaiah Berlin mentions the limits of freedom. He says that great thinkers have been asserting that if we had unlimited freedom, “because it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of 'natural' freedom would lead to social chaos in which men's minimum needs would not be satisfied”. He goes on to say that “they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself.” They would curtail ‘freedom’ in the interest of ‘freedom’.
Is it ever necessary to give up certain freedoms to preserve others? Before we can answer this question we must first decide what liberty and freedom mean? Well liberty can mean a lot of things, it can be the freedom to do a certain act without fear of danger or harm, it can be the freedom to receive the minimum resources necessary to reach ones own potential, or it can be the freedom to remain unobstructed and pursue your own happiness. This brings us back to the questions at hand; can free action be limited by law? Can it be protected by law? Does this even make sense? If you go with the last definition probably not, however I think that certain rules are necessary to protect free action. Without rules we would be reduced to chaos; however I feel that those rules can and should be instituted in a way that would maximize freedom and limit regulation. In writing our Constitution the founders set up a framework to protect freedom. In reading the preamble you hear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is clear to me that they felt that liberty can be protected by a set of rules.
In closing I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which I feel is relevant. The quote says “those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Ben Martinez two questions
Is it sometimes necessary in order to protect life to sacrifice a little liberty? To what degree have we given up liberty to ensure personal security? Is this a bad thing?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
What Will our Planet Look Like in 50 Years?
by Scott Bergemann
Humans are unique in the sense that we can adapt within a matter of years. We don’t need reproductive mutation passed on through thousands of generations to develop a useful characteristic. We have technology. Ironically, the blind use of human technology is actually the cause of this potentially disastrous climate change. Ever since the industrial revolution we’ve been hopeless technology addicts. Lately we’ve come to find out that, although our modern technological advances are really fun and make us feel super cool, they aren’t very good for the earth’s health. The earth is obviously pretty sick---Hurricane Katrina, Europe’s heat wave, South Asia’s Tsunami---and scientists predict it is only going to get worse. In fact they have seriously been predicting climate change for the last ten years, and their predictions are daunting. They are predicting warmer temperatures, sea level rises, and even extinctions within the next twenty years. Look out your window right now, and remember it. When you’re old and dying, it’s not going to be the same looking world. I’m not a scientist so I can’t tell you exactly what it will look like, but it won’t be the beautiful place humans have come to know and love. It will sadly be marred by humans. Your children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same luxuries of playing outside on green grass that you did; it will be to dry and water will be much to precious for grass to grow freely, and the air quality would likely be unhealthy for the sensitive lungs of a child.
America has the most resources and influence of any other country on this planet. We have boundless technological capabilities, but it is how we use these capabilities that really counts. Currently we are not doing nearly enough to actually reduce green house gases and harness climate change. You can’t tell me that we have the technology to explore space, but we can’t develop a personal automobile that drives on earth without tarnishing the environment. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The fact is, no one up in Washington cares about the well being of the planet and its people; they care about money and power. The system is so inundated with special interest money---money pumped in by America’s top 1% so they stay at the top---that it is nearly impossible to get environmental interests considered. These wealthy lobbyists, CEO’s, and politicians may know that climate change is coming, but they know their money is going to come a hell of a lot faster. If you take a real, genuine moral high ground in politics, you lose all of your contributions, and you lose your job.
America claims to be the leader in the mitigation of global efforts to reduce green house gases world-wide, but we need a lot less commercials and a lot more action. We have to seat a momentous example, not minor regulations here and there. It is paramount that this reaction to climate change happens on a global scale, and therefore it would take tremendous cooperation and communication between the world’s powers.
It would be easy to isolate America from the rest of the world and not participate in these complex global policy issues. But that is an unrealistic way of thinking. The western countries let the proverbial genie out of the bottle years ago during the glorious industrial revolution, and now these developing countries want to have their wishes of living prosperously granted too. Problem is that we kind of realized what we were doing was uhhhh….BAD! So now we have a huge conflict of global values. Half of the globe has a secure way and means to living so they have half-heartedly moved on to caring for the security of the earth. The other half of the globe is trying to secure the coveted lifestyle we enjoy with no concern for the long-term health of the planet. Who is right? WAR!!!!!!!!!!
Humans are unique in the sense that we can adapt within a matter of years. We don’t need reproductive mutation passed on through thousands of generations to develop a useful characteristic. We have technology. Ironically, the blind use of human technology is actually the cause of this potentially disastrous climate change. Ever since the industrial revolution we’ve been hopeless technology addicts. Lately we’ve come to find out that, although our modern technological advances are really fun and make us feel super cool, they aren’t very good for the earth’s health. The earth is obviously pretty sick---Hurricane Katrina, Europe’s heat wave, South Asia’s Tsunami---and scientists predict it is only going to get worse. In fact they have seriously been predicting climate change for the last ten years, and their predictions are daunting. They are predicting warmer temperatures, sea level rises, and even extinctions within the next twenty years. Look out your window right now, and remember it. When you’re old and dying, it’s not going to be the same looking world. I’m not a scientist so I can’t tell you exactly what it will look like, but it won’t be the beautiful place humans have come to know and love. It will sadly be marred by humans. Your children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same luxuries of playing outside on green grass that you did; it will be to dry and water will be much to precious for grass to grow freely, and the air quality would likely be unhealthy for the sensitive lungs of a child.
America has the most resources and influence of any other country on this planet. We have boundless technological capabilities, but it is how we use these capabilities that really counts. Currently we are not doing nearly enough to actually reduce green house gases and harness climate change. You can’t tell me that we have the technology to explore space, but we can’t develop a personal automobile that drives on earth without tarnishing the environment. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The fact is, no one up in Washington cares about the well being of the planet and its people; they care about money and power. The system is so inundated with special interest money---money pumped in by America’s top 1% so they stay at the top---that it is nearly impossible to get environmental interests considered. These wealthy lobbyists, CEO’s, and politicians may know that climate change is coming, but they know their money is going to come a hell of a lot faster. If you take a real, genuine moral high ground in politics, you lose all of your contributions, and you lose your job.
America claims to be the leader in the mitigation of global efforts to reduce green house gases world-wide, but we need a lot less commercials and a lot more action. We have to seat a momentous example, not minor regulations here and there. It is paramount that this reaction to climate change happens on a global scale, and therefore it would take tremendous cooperation and communication between the world’s powers.
It would be easy to isolate America from the rest of the world and not participate in these complex global policy issues. But that is an unrealistic way of thinking. The western countries let the proverbial genie out of the bottle years ago during the glorious industrial revolution, and now these developing countries want to have their wishes of living prosperously granted too. Problem is that we kind of realized what we were doing was uhhhh….BAD! So now we have a huge conflict of global values. Half of the globe has a secure way and means to living so they have half-heartedly moved on to caring for the security of the earth. The other half of the globe is trying to secure the coveted lifestyle we enjoy with no concern for the long-term health of the planet. Who is right? WAR!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Scott Bergemann's Two Questions
1. Do you think the current American environmental policies and efforts to address climate change have been sufficient in addressing the problem? Do you think politicians view climate change as a serious issue? Should it be a big issue? What further policies do you think should be implemented?
2. Do you think life on this earth (not the cities and cars, but the oceans, lakes, forests, nature etc.) will be any different for you children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Do you think the policies made today will affect the earth looks like in seventy years?
2. Do you think life on this earth (not the cities and cars, but the oceans, lakes, forests, nature etc.) will be any different for you children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Do you think the policies made today will affect the earth looks like in seventy years?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What is Efficiency? From Dash Kramer
Efficiency is defined as an accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. In her book, Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone agrees with this definition saying that a company is most efficient when they do an amazing job with what ever budget they may have. He talks about what makes a library efficient. When a library has an array of updated books with what low budget they may have is when they are considered efficient to Stone.
To me this isn’t the case at all. A company is efficient when they complete what goal they set out to do at the beginning of the year. They may achieve this by what ever means necessary. They don’t have to use all of their money or they can use it all and more if need be. A company is efficient when they achieve what they need to by what ever it takes. In the case of a library; to me, it can be efficient if they have to most commonly used books. It does not matter if they use all of their money or that they have a large selection of books but only if they have books that the customers need.
Efficiency to me is almost like a power struggle. Companies look at themselves by how efficient they are and what they accomplish as a company and if they met all of the requirements that were set at the beginning of the year. When the head of your company thinks that another company got better numbers than them and was there for more efficient the head of your company is going to get angry and want to do better in the next term to show that our company is the best. Efficiency is all about power to me when it comes to the big companies, who can do better than the others, there for is the better company.
What they fail to realize and what Stone fails to realize is that companies can be a great and efficient if they meet their set goals and standards and make their customers happy. A company may profit from meeting the quotas but if they really want to make as much money as they can then they need to treat those people the best and put the most time into them, the customer. The customer is the one who is going to keep coming back and putting more money into the company. When you have thousands and maybe even millions of them if you are one of the bigger companies and all of those customers are giving money back to the company from their yearly earnings. This will also help them out in the long run because if they create long lasting positive relationships with their customers then the customers and going to keep coming back and will tell the people that they know about your company which will create even more profit for your company. It is a huge circle that turns and turns and turns and always comes back to you. Companies should have their motto’s as “you get out what you put in.” If companies lived by this then they would make more money than they could e
To me this isn’t the case at all. A company is efficient when they complete what goal they set out to do at the beginning of the year. They may achieve this by what ever means necessary. They don’t have to use all of their money or they can use it all and more if need be. A company is efficient when they achieve what they need to by what ever it takes. In the case of a library; to me, it can be efficient if they have to most commonly used books. It does not matter if they use all of their money or that they have a large selection of books but only if they have books that the customers need.
Efficiency to me is almost like a power struggle. Companies look at themselves by how efficient they are and what they accomplish as a company and if they met all of the requirements that were set at the beginning of the year. When the head of your company thinks that another company got better numbers than them and was there for more efficient the head of your company is going to get angry and want to do better in the next term to show that our company is the best. Efficiency is all about power to me when it comes to the big companies, who can do better than the others, there for is the better company.
What they fail to realize and what Stone fails to realize is that companies can be a great and efficient if they meet their set goals and standards and make their customers happy. A company may profit from meeting the quotas but if they really want to make as much money as they can then they need to treat those people the best and put the most time into them, the customer. The customer is the one who is going to keep coming back and putting more money into the company. When you have thousands and maybe even millions of them if you are one of the bigger companies and all of those customers are giving money back to the company from their yearly earnings. This will also help them out in the long run because if they create long lasting positive relationships with their customers then the customers and going to keep coming back and will tell the people that they know about your company which will create even more profit for your company. It is a huge circle that turns and turns and turns and always comes back to you. Companies should have their motto’s as “you get out what you put in.” If companies lived by this then they would make more money than they could e
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Alexander Daley's Two Questions
1. Does the attachment of a title to a seller's name (such as Ph.D., M.D., etc.) blind a consumer to the fact that the person doing the selling is advertising a good or service, regardless of the quality of the service? Is this an efficient way of going about, for example, finding a doctor for your children?
2. Since we are dependent on sellers, what type of relationship between you and the seller is most beneficial? One of mutual exchange? Fear?
2. Since we are dependent on sellers, what type of relationship between you and the seller is most beneficial? One of mutual exchange? Fear?
Dash Kramer's Two Questions
Do you feel that a "library" or any company/ business is efficient when
they have the most outcome from what budget they may have? and how do you
measure when a business/ company is efficient?
when two parties agree on a deal, should the give and take be an immediate
result or can it be a long-term result and is that still an efficient
deal??
they have the most outcome from what budget they may have? and how do you
measure when a business/ company is efficient?
when two parties agree on a deal, should the give and take be an immediate
result or can it be a long-term result and is that still an efficient
deal??
Teacher Student Relations -- by Alexander Daley
The easiest way to understand an efficient relationship between a consumer and a seller; is to compare that relationship to a student and his or her teacher. Because titles attached to names influence the how we look at one another. In college, students are predominately taught by professors who have achieved the level of Ph.D. in their particular field. We as college students listen to what they have to say and immediately file it in our brains under the heading of: COMPLETE TRUTH. Why do we do this? Because they are "doctors", what they say has to be true, right? Well…maybe. As Stone states, "Any suppliers who sell a combination of services and advice - directly shape the preferences of their consumers." Then again, why listen to Stone? Because she was able to get her words published in a book? For now, we'll proceed with that conclusion.
A medical school friend of mine once asked me this question: "Alexander, what are the similarities and differences between a Ph.D., an M.D., and an R.D.?" When I could not answer he said, "M.D. and R.D. are exactly the same thing, because Medical Doctors are actually Real Doctors. A Ph.D. is not." I told this joke to my grandmother who just recently got her Ph.D., and she did not speak to me for a week. She was insulted for two reasons: First, I minimized the effort she spent on becoming a professor. Second, I undermined the authority of her title. Although I felt bad and eventually apologized, I still agree with my friend. Professors are not "doctors". They cannot prescribe medication or offer medical advice about the human body. They are; however, highly decorated with the title, because of their level of education in their field of study. Needless to say, I no longer tell this joke around the CLU campus, in fear for my grades. Which leads to the question, what type of relationship is best to have with a professor if you are a student?
You cannot have a relationship with a teacher geared toward mutual gain. What you have to say and offer, they have probably heard from countless other students or have studied for themselves first hand. Students may not have anything original to offer, but professors do (or so we are forced to believe). Going back to what I asked before, why do we file what they say under: COMPLETE TRUTH? I should follow this question with: Do you really have a choice? The relationship is one based upon the hierarchy of authority. The relationship is more based on fear of failure than anything else. There exists a subconscious cause and effect fear that usually sounds like, "If I don't listen to them, then I will probably fail the class." Stone also says that there is a measure of pleasure that we derive from watching others in a state of discomfort. Questions and challenges put people in a state of discomfort. Professors asked questions and face us with challenges. But when we answer a question correctly or overcome a challenge, we (as consumers) feel better.
This argument could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is that both consumers and sellers have to follow what John Nash defined as: Game Theory; in order to have society function efficiently. Doing what is best for oneself, while doing what is best for the collective (or relationship). For whatever their reason (and there are several), students must listen to their teachers to do what is best for themselves and TRUST that what they are being taught is the truth. Likewise, teachers must teach in a way that is best for their students collectively. No doubt, we want to defy authority. We sing about it, write books on it, and sometimes we practice defiance. However, we have to put down the torches and pitchforks, push certain urges aside, and accurately define a relationship. Otherwise efficiency would forfeit to chaos. Then again, why listen to me?
A medical school friend of mine once asked me this question: "Alexander, what are the similarities and differences between a Ph.D., an M.D., and an R.D.?" When I could not answer he said, "M.D. and R.D. are exactly the same thing, because Medical Doctors are actually Real Doctors. A Ph.D. is not." I told this joke to my grandmother who just recently got her Ph.D., and she did not speak to me for a week. She was insulted for two reasons: First, I minimized the effort she spent on becoming a professor. Second, I undermined the authority of her title. Although I felt bad and eventually apologized, I still agree with my friend. Professors are not "doctors". They cannot prescribe medication or offer medical advice about the human body. They are; however, highly decorated with the title, because of their level of education in their field of study. Needless to say, I no longer tell this joke around the CLU campus, in fear for my grades. Which leads to the question, what type of relationship is best to have with a professor if you are a student?
You cannot have a relationship with a teacher geared toward mutual gain. What you have to say and offer, they have probably heard from countless other students or have studied for themselves first hand. Students may not have anything original to offer, but professors do (or so we are forced to believe). Going back to what I asked before, why do we file what they say under: COMPLETE TRUTH? I should follow this question with: Do you really have a choice? The relationship is one based upon the hierarchy of authority. The relationship is more based on fear of failure than anything else. There exists a subconscious cause and effect fear that usually sounds like, "If I don't listen to them, then I will probably fail the class." Stone also says that there is a measure of pleasure that we derive from watching others in a state of discomfort. Questions and challenges put people in a state of discomfort. Professors asked questions and face us with challenges. But when we answer a question correctly or overcome a challenge, we (as consumers) feel better.
This argument could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is that both consumers and sellers have to follow what John Nash defined as: Game Theory; in order to have society function efficiently. Doing what is best for oneself, while doing what is best for the collective (or relationship). For whatever their reason (and there are several), students must listen to their teachers to do what is best for themselves and TRUST that what they are being taught is the truth. Likewise, teachers must teach in a way that is best for their students collectively. No doubt, we want to defy authority. We sing about it, write books on it, and sometimes we practice defiance. However, we have to put down the torches and pitchforks, push certain urges aside, and accurately define a relationship. Otherwise efficiency would forfeit to chaos. Then again, why listen to me?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)