Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Group items tagged society

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Amanda Garcia

The Road to Serfdom - Readers Digest, April 1945 Condensation - 7 views

www.barefootsworld.net/serfdom.html

shared by Amanda Garcia on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 24 Sep 12
       
      I understand the connection he is trying to make between slavery and socialism but which is better or easier and less expensive for a government to run? I think that our "free democracy" is just a cheaper version of slavery which according the the article is one and the same as socialism.  I feel like our government has found that efficiency point where people here are paid just enough to do what we want them to without having to actually care about the well being of the workers.  Think about what it took for an american slave owner to keep his or her slave working.  They had to make sure that the slave had a place to sleep, cloths, enough food to make sure they could do all the work they were asked to to.  Today nobody worries about how their gardner or house cleaning is living, they pay them just enought to do teh work you asked and then they go back to wherever they can afford to live and eat what they can with the small amount of money they made from cleaning or mowing as many houses and lawns as the time in one day would let them.  I am not saying that I am pro slavery I am just asking the question, which one provides more for the work?
  • we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 25 Sep 12
       
      Why would we want to produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for? Wouldn't we want what we have been working each and everyday for? Wouldn't we want what's best for us and not the complete opposite?
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 26 Sep 12
       
      This also relates to "history repeats itself". I agree with the above. We are striving so hard to get to the oposite that we end up doing precisely what we didn't want to do.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 26 Sep 12
       
      Basically like Oedipus Rex
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think the "history repeats itself"  idea is spot on for what he was trying to say. And above that as well why would we producing the very opposite of what we have been striving for it does not fit in the grand scheme of things.
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree that " history repeats itself". However, Kayla sawoski has a point about production, why would we go backwards.The problem was not the economy. It was fear. Fear was the main factor that lead to the production of this book(article). I simply do not find Friedrich's logic plausible. Clearly he has underestimated the United States ideology views towards a free economy. The United States is unifted as a nation based on princles of "Free Marktet based economy". He has underestimated the secular purpose of America and market exchange.
  • Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 25 Sep 12
       
      Having our own private area where we can go and express ourselves is very important. Humans need a place where we can be free to do as we please in the privacy of our own homes without society watching our every move. A means of privacy is very important to have generated in our government. 
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 26 Sep 12
       
      we sort of contradict this idea of private property because we invite people to come onto our property a lot of the time. For example, if you have a party you are inviting people you don't even know onto your property. There is no such thing as absolute privacy as the police have the ability to come into your home with a court order. There are ways around and reasons for everything.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think this is true. I believe our generation is to worried about the means of freedom that we don't have that we forget the majority things that we do have. Private property is definitely one of the most important guarantees considering we are able to have our own home and everything we want belong in it without government interfering. 
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with this statement. I think that our generation has forgotten the guarantee of freedom through private property because we live in a time where government tells us where we can build, what we can build and when we can build. The government also has the power to take away our property. When I was growing up I saw this first hand when many of my neighbors were forced out of their homes so that government buildings could be put up. Yes, they were compensated but they freedom of private property was taken from them.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 28 Sep 12
       
      i agree with both of these statements. I believe that it is important to have privacy generated in our government, but i also agree that it's not entirely true. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think the line between privacy and public property has become very blurred in today's age. Not only that but I also agree with Alexis in that there no such thing as absolute privacy, except maybe in our own minds. Especially with the emergence of technology such as the internet and computers; whatever we do on there, there are people who could probably access it, no matter how cryptic or private we make it.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 28 Sep 12
       
      The private property issue is a tough one, especially when it comes to whether or not the government has the right to tell someone they have to sell their house/business for the sake of city planning. On one end, there is something incredibly unjust about telling someone they MUST sell their property for whatever you are going to offer them, and they can take the compensation or leave it, but either way they loose their property. This seems like a flagrant violation of their right to property. But at the same time, the government has an obligation to do what is best for the city, and if something needs to be built for the good of all, then I understand why they would feel like they have a right to make someone leave their home. But does the fact that it is for the "common good" make it ok to violate someone's constitutional rights? In this case, I would say no, but it is an interesting dilemma.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 29 Sep 12
       
      strong statement and so relevant. freedom is questioned all together not only with private property
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 27 Sep 12
       
      This statement after the private property statement above is important as people need private property in order to make decisions that are best for themselves, individually. If all the power is put into society as a whole, then some poeple will not be happy as the power rests with "society" or a single person. Individuals need to have the chance to conduct their own business and to be free, so that society as individuals have power over themselves and not be forced into something that they do not want. They might have to go along though as they are dependent on the powerful for their economic wellness in society.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 28 Sep 12
       
      Also when power is put into the hands of society there seems to be a chaos factor that grows. Yes, we need our privacy, but we also need governemnt regulation to keep complete chaos from happening.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 28 Sep 12
       
      Going off what Lauren said, that society needs a chance to have power. This sounds a lot like what we talked about last class in that the powerful people are powerful because they can manipulate society into believing they have a chance but really the fate is already planned out. But as long as society believes they have an option chaos will not break out. 
  • Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 27 Sep 12
       
      I find this to be true as socialism puts the power of individuals into the hands of "society" or one individual, which takes away each individual's freedom to decide what they want to do personally and that means each individual loses their freedom to advance in the world (as they choose what they want for themselves and not society as a whole), instead of being at the same level as everyone else of that society.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree, socialism would be a grave threat to freedom. It gives away an individual's right to be free and weaken the power of the people.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 28 Sep 12
       
      A lot of the people around me who are against Obama like to claim that he is a socialist, and they say it like its a bad word. What they are really saying is that they feel as though he is threatening their freedoms.  After reading this article, I can see what they mean, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them.
  • Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 27 Sep 12
       
      So basically socialism is aiming at taking away the freedom of the people to act as individuals by trying to get to them by taking care of their financial needs. The socialism idea may seem nice right then and there because it provides a sense of security, but the freedom taken away by not being able to decide how to deal with your private property in the long run, in my opinion, is a bigger deal than that sense of security for now.
  • They do not realize that to strive for socialism produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 27 Sep 12
       
      This is interesting how the very society you try to improve is actually harmed when societies advance toward socialism. This can relate to the everlasting desire to improve and/or change our societies. However, when an advancement to socialism is made, society is harmed by the increasing lack of liberty. You think people would realize the harm that they are bringing to themselves. Perhaps they are too blinded by their negative connotations of other societies that socialism seems appealing since it differs from most other governments. 
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 28 Sep 12
       
      I think that most people are unaware of this fact and it should be made know. Most people want to have the most freedom that they can, however, they think they can have socialism as well. If people were to be shown the effects that socialism has and how it indeed destroys freedom, then people would start to have different views of the subject. 
  • "Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation."
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 28 Sep 12
       
      its funny how the two quotes about the book differ so greatly. at first it is called "sad and angry little book" but then 4 days later by the same newspaper, but different writers said "Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation" its amazing how the second review cause the book to sell so many more copies 
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree, public media usually changes it's mind and once it does, the general public agrees too.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 28 Sep 12
       
      I wonder if anyone noticed the sudden change of opinion from the New York Times? Isn't there some kind of editor to prevent stuff like that from happening?  
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Sarah and Caitlin. The general public are like lemmings. They can't really think on their own until someone says otherwise. And I think that is one of the problems we have today in society as well. No one really knows what is going on because they follow what they hear over and over again, as each opinion changes. 
  • "One of the Most Important Books of Our Generation."
  • while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 28 Sep 12
       
      Its interesting to me that people could find socialism a good idea when in comparison with democracy. Just this line makes me nervous to be in a socialist country.  
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 28 Sep 12
       
      This sentence strikes me as odd because they consider both democracy and socialism to be seeking equality just in different ways. Democracy is clearly seeking freedom and socialism seeking power and control. It is interesting to think that they both seek equality among there people where in reality is socialism really producing equality?
  • the book eventually sold at least 230,000 copies in the U.S. Hayek went on a U.S. lecture tour, including prestigious places like Harvard University, and he decided he rather liked being a lightning rod for freedom.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 28 Sep 12
       
      This goes back to what Caitlin said about how the book changed from being widely unknown, to doing a complete 180 and becoming highly popular and getting such high attention from places such as Harvard University. Hayek also decided that he would use his publicity to not only his advantage, but the advantage of others.
  • Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything - the whole direction of the resources of the nation. The number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 28 Sep 12
       
      It's quite crazy how relevant this passage is to our modern congress in the United States. I think it is quite apparent that our current congress has not been working towards maximum efficiency. Congress has reached a point where one own's political party has become far too polarizing.  But can congress truly work as a planning agency? Not all congressional histories have been wrought with inefficiency. As the Civil Rights Bill of the 1960s and the surplus of the 1990s demonstrate, congress does have the distinct power to work in way that can produce a common good for all Americans. I still believe in the democratic system. I still feel that, given the right circumstance, our congressional system can produce a level of good for the American people. Its not the system that's broken. Its the politicians that refuse to compromise that is harming us. 
  • it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 28 Sep 12
       
      Not only would it not satisfy anybody but it would also require a lot of transaction costs.  It would simply be a waste of time.
  • by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. An amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 28 Sep 12
       
      This statement is completely true and speaks to the importance of the dispersion of power. Centralized power blinds the holders to the needs of whom they have power over and taken power from. No single unit can possess the knowledge what is best for a society. Partly because the needs of the people within that society have variations among themselves and the greater power has no insight to those needs. The socialistic approach denies the people to which the power is held over their right to their personal liberties. Denying a group of people the right to autonomy creates resentment and distaste which steers away from allowing opportunity to peoples' "good life".
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Miss Jensen, the socialistic leader might be attempting to 'plan' what's best for society, but often doesn't have an unhindered view of what's actually happening/what's best for the people.
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 28 Sep 12
       
      Hahahah. Churchill loses at everything.
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 28 Sep 12
       
      Fascinating that in a country of free speech where all most forms of protest and talk can be tolerated people were so against publishing a book that thought differently. Perhaps they were afraid to endorse a dangerous idea like this because they were still so afraid of a "Red Scare" like reaction?
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 29 Sep 12
       
      yeah I agree. I think people were afraid of controversy. crazy though how this book ends up being a huge hit. like it says some friends worked wonders for the book, and now rather than being controversial it is considered one of the most important books written. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 28 Sep 12
       
      This does not make any sense to me. Why should we produce the opposite of what we have been wanting to achieve. I believe that we should work towards our goals in life.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Sep 12
       
      Hayek appears to be saying that with the "economic planning" the hope is that everyone will be happier and more production will be realized, but that the opposite is what happens..
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 28 Sep 12
       
      I dont think that democracy and planning are two clashing ideas.  I think that they can coexist peacefully without the idea that either one can be an obstacle for the other.  
  • planners must create power
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Sep 12
       
      but appear powerless..
  • It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking
  • In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 07 Oct 12
       
      I think the argument he is making is a strong and interesting one. I've never quite heard it put like this but I can't say that I disagree with him at all. The former may be nothing but the better of two evils, which is not particularly desired, but the latter in this instance would be an envelopment of something much worse. 
  • gina Hogrefe on 26 Sep 12
     
    This article is a lot to digest because of the socialism analysis. The author suggests that going to a socialistic system would insinuate getting rid of freedom. Essentially socialism is a dictator party for the people that would abolish the monopolies that control the economy. The authors solution to socialism/ fascism is to re-embrace and exercise our constitutional rights.
  • madison taylor on 28 Sep 12
     
    I would agree with the part where he said that private property is our most important guarantee of freedom. By being able to own our own property and do with it as we please and there is really noone that can take it away from us once we own it we have the ultimate right to freedom right there.
Jason van Rijn

Dr. Marichal's Course Portals (2170) - 32 views

www.netvibes.com/pols208

shared by Jason van Rijn on 01 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 01 Sep 11
       
      I agree with this statement. Because this generation is exposed to the internet they have more conversations with each other, which complements the simply writing as well as writing being easier. With internet conversations being without emotions and physical connection, words can easily be interpreted in a wrong way. Which is why this generation writing may be simplier than previous generations. However, because of the informality of the internet they adapt to the misuse of words, which adds to the lack of proper grammer.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 02 Sep 11
       
      With all due respect to Felecia, grammar is spelled incorrectly above. Nothing personal, just thought it was a pun and went along with the point you were making. I do agree, though, in a sense that it can force students to adapt to the misuse, but it also depends on the students themselves.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 19 Sep 11
       
      taking informalities one step further I feel the generation now and those younger turning in those that when it comes to social interactions, many are inept in something as simple as a personal conversation initiative. The times being crippling in the personal stake of matters in having face on conversations. rather than talk it out; its turned to text it out. speaking in generalities of course. not saying they aren't exceptions, but its an increasing trend of shutting out and believing what one reads rather than thinking it out with someone there of what they genuinely think.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 20 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Steve, I feel the younger generation has a harder time interacting with people and making conversation because everything is done electronically. You see more young people in society being shy or awkward around big crowds it is because of technology, nothing is personal anymore and I feel more people need to be willing to have a conversation and open up to people and engage in something they might not have much knowledge about because in the long run it will be better for your future and give you more opportunities to meet new people.
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 19 Sep 12
       
      I don't agree with any of you ---- JK
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 08 Sep 11
       
      It amazes me that 21st century medicine has yet to reach places such as Niger. In American and other 1st world countries death during childbirth is unheard of. I would think that with all of the volunteers and global programs these hospitals would at least have basic medicine. I am disgusted that this is still going on in such a developed world. These kinds of problems are being overlooked. Instead, the world is fighting over petty issues. I plan to have a career in healthcare and this article really has me thinking.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 10 Sep 11
       
      This is obviously true for mothers around the world. Not every woman that goes into birth have proper care, some women are faced with dire consequences and results. A pregnant woman walking an hour to deliver a baby seems crucial in today's society. However, it is not hard for me to believe or envision this because this is the way of the world. The poor are really poor and the rich are extremely rich. Where is the middle ground?
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 16 Sep 11
       
      it is racking for how a person feels about these circumstances especially thinking about it in the sense of how people feel about karma and would want themselves treated if in difficult circumstances themselves. gilt of western civilization and privilege. that middle ground is especially hard to break into with the polis, market relationship being differing in changes in one will often go into an effect with the other that will become a problematic notion itself later to others who question the notion of THAT particular policy.
  • ...59 more annotations...
    • Sabryna Aylard
      Sabryna Aylard on 12 Sep 11
       
      When reading this article, it was really unbelieveable about the conditions of the hospitals and how horrible healthcare is in third world countries. It showed how large a spectrum is from a thriving economic society to a undeveloped country.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 13 Sep 11
       
      Reading this article about the conditions in Niger makes me realize how blessed and fortunate we are here in the U.S. to have so many medical facilities and assistants to help and take of us in times of need. Just like it was mentioned in the article it seems like Niger was back in the middle ages where none of the resources we have today were available.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 15 Sep 11
       
      John Smith's books were all written around free market ideals. His book the wealth of nations describes that if people pursue their own interests, society will also benefit. I can agree with this statement in several ways. As seen in some fallen communist countries, if people do not have a private, personal good to work for, people are not generally willing to work as hard. Whereas if someone will receive self benefits/advancement they will be wiling to work harder to benefit society because of it. Once could also look at this from the standpoint that although the richest of people make more money than most could ever imagine, they are pumping millions of those dollars into the economy through job and good creation. So here, people are receiving self-benefits, but their companies are also benefiting the US economy. 
    • Sabryna Aylard
      Sabryna Aylard on 16 Sep 11
       
      I remember the day care experiment from another class. I always found it interesting that when you are given a fee of something, your morality goes unharmed since your paying it off.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 20 Sep 11
       
      I found this article to be very interesting. In my global issues class we had discussed specialization, and how specialization is more "efficient" (we also discussed efficiency). In this article they talked about how people are breaking down things like health into small,specialized aspects instead of looking at health as a whole- with many different contributing components. Was this done because it was more "efficient" in the world of study and research? It seems like there could be some sort of a connection, maybe the connection lies within the researchers themselves who are "specialists" in a particular study, so when doing research they do not take into account the later picture....
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 20 Sep 11
       
      Larger*
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 26 Sep 11
       
      In this article it says "...that if individual liberty is an ultimate end for human beings..." I found this to be very interesting because freedom is often looked so highly upon that it seems to be the very thing everyone strives for. It is true, freedom is a great thing, but can individual freedom be an ultimate end? We can't let people going around doing whatever they want. That is why we have laws- to create and maintain order within the polis. It is interesting to think though just how much individual freedom we can allow without ending overall peace and well-being within a society.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 26 Sep 11
       
      For myself at least, I found that freedom was a means to an end and my personal favorite. I think people use freedom as a tool to find happiness and meaning within their own life. I agree that we have laws to attempt to solve the issues that arise between the differences and disagreements that we have within our society.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 26 Sep 11
       
      Freedom is every man's dream..For the longest freedom has praised by everyone who became a heroic figure . But the definition of freedom changes from person to person. Freedom can be happiness to one and it can mean to have the freedom of expression to another . Freedom is a word that portrays to a broad topic. In the article Isaiah Berlin says that…" it is a term whose meaning is so porous that there is little interpretation that it seems able to resist."
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 26 Sep 11
       
      I agree in a way that there is no clear definition of freedom.  It is not something that is universal to everyone, but it is based off the individual's standards.  For example, some who may have just moved to the United states from a foreign country may consider freedom as being able to speak their opinion, while a U.S. born citizen may consider freedom as something along the lines of choosing whether or not to wear their seatbelt.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 26 Sep 11
       
      This is the problem in washington: people can't find the "middle ground" or much less compromise.  The constant push and pull between positive and negative liberties will have scary consequences for the future of our nation.
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 10 Oct 11
       
      I agree and feel that the reason for this is because everybody naturally has different views and perspectives.  The right way to categorize in one's mind may vary to another individual.  This is why when we vote it is not unanimous but it is of the majority vote.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 19 Sep 12
       
      There is never going to be a "middle ground" anywhere, considering that every individual grows up with a different background, views, economic stance, etc.  
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 30 Sep 11
       
      I thought it was interesting that Simon Lovell studied so deeply into what makes a con man so successful. He explains that a con man is a good salesman, which seems pretty logical. I never thought deep into it though. He says that being a con man requires study of psychology and body language. I could see this helping, but does anyone really think con men go to such great lengths?? I feel like they just make good conversations and play into the wants of society
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 03 Oct 11
       
      This article is very bias. It talks about how republicans exploit information and use freaking techniques to trick americans. Don't ALL politicians do this? I just found it to be very interesting how the article began by putting blame on one side to make its ideas appear unreasonable. We discussed last week how "framing" is used across the board.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 05 Oct 11
       
      I kind of agree with this article. It is ridiculous that we have to use celebrities and crazy adds to grab people's attention and make them want to help. It's a "trend". If it's made cool and popular by celebrities and famous politicians people will jump on board. I guess though, these things are raising awareness. Before the ICU club appeared, most college and high school kids had no idea about what was going on in Darfur and other African countries. I feel like people should hold some kind of social responsibility to know major things that are happening in the world. But like we said in class the other day, people don't take this responsibility as a citizen of the world seriously, so I guess crazy adds and celebs have to be used to spread awarness.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 21 Oct 11
       
      Taking caution with "the rustle in the grass" is important because all to often we accept stories and patterns as true because of the titles associated with them and those who are giving us the information. 
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 24 Oct 11
       
      Personally, I agree with the whole "slidware" stunt. I think that by using Microsoft Powerpoint, Keynote, etc. people can hide the fact that their discussion lacks content. Sometimes pictures and phrases can be useful in guiding the discussion or providing examples. This is not always the case though. In high school one of my teachers pointed out in another student's powerpoint that he/she had no true analysis about the topic, but was attempting to cover that up with fancy fonts, catchy slogans, and lots of pictures. When I listen to a speaker I want to be sure that I am being given as much DATA as possible, and even more important RELEVANT DATA! I've even caught teachers using their power points to cover the truth that they were not prepared to present the lecture. 
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 24 Oct 11
       
      The author makes a good point in the fact that visual reasoning usually works more effectively when relevant information is shown side by side.  It is easier for a reader to understand the significance of something if they have something else to compare it to.  I think that is how policy is either passed or not passed, based on whether that significance is strong enough.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 28 Oct 11
       
      I thought the whole idea of the command and control functions was very interesting. I think, especially in public policy, they're both used together. When a piece of legislation is passed we don't really have much control over it (granted, we could protest, sign petitions, etc.), so we have to do as "they" say. That's the command function. The control function is also in use though. I think that in order to make something seem more appealing and in order to gain support politicians definitely re order the environment to fit their argument. We're kind of tricked by this....
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 30 Oct 11
       
      I thought that the dangerous memes talk was a interesting talk that gave a unique look into humanity and our ideas or memes. It seemed to me that a major point in his talk was to attempt in certain cases to approach ideas in a morally objective manner to determine if such an ideea is a good or bad thing for humanity. Overall I believe that he did a very fine job giving his talk while staying as objective as possible.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 03 Nov 11
       
      I think that political scientists are beginning to realize more and more than almost everything is significant when it comes to "social construction". We are all, to some extent, influenced by both internal and external factors. I find the idea behind specific groups to be very interesting. I have always noticed that there are many politically-based groups that strictly abide by one set of ideals. I always wonder why they refuse to wander outside of their established "zone" and who are what factors led them to believe those were the best ideals. Gender is especially interesting. I guess women tend to be more soft/gentle/emotional characters, so this is why their ideals lean a certain way. However, I wonder if things may be changing. It seems as though a long time ago women had an established place and role in society, so this could have influenced their thinking. Now though, women can and do do all of the same things that men partake in. I wonder if this influences them politically at all. I, for one, am not soft and probably not as emotional or sympathetic as some people think I should be. 
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 07 Nov 11
       
      This article is very interesting. I think it's weird how they were actually able to transform an educational institution by first changing the name. I think that people embrace names and that they can be somewhat empowering. If the name of something is relatable or refers to something grand then people tend to be more responsive. I think this is a kind of framing in which a name can shape an institution, how it works, and how it's members participate. 
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 11 Nov 11
       
      this line about power growing as well as the enemies list got me to thinking, when your power and influence get stronger and expand does that automatically cause you to gain a longer list of enemies and "haters" and do the enemies have reason other than jealousy for this animosity. is it really Jay-Z's fault that he is a powerful respected man?
    • shane paulson
      shane paulson on 18 Nov 11
       
      I agree in a way that power influences the audience and how well known you are.  It is only natural that amongst a large group there are going to be haters.
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 18 Nov 11
       
      I can see both the pros and cons of this situation and always apply it to the legalization of marijuana in California. While I worry that legalization makes illicit drug use acceptable, we do see cases where drug use actually declines in the period after legalization. I don't really understand why this is, though, ...if something is legal it's not fun anymore?? I just think that, although it would be a good source of tax money, If marijuana is legalized people will still use it but I also think they will turn to other kinds of drug use which are much more serious. Whether we like it or not we know that a great amount of illicit drug use comes from marijuana use.  Tax Revenue or Possibility of more illicit drug use? I'm not sure which is better, or what would happen if drugs were legalized in America. In a variety of things, laws and regulations do not work in America as they do in foreign countries because we are so different, diverse, and seem to have overall different views on morals. 
    • Lauren Petta
      Lauren Petta on 05 Dec 11
       
      I think that, while it would be RIDICULOUS, if the administration had no idea what was going on in Rwanda, the third point is correct in some sense. It said "regardless of what it knew, there was nothing useful to be done. We see in a lot of unfortunate situations like this the only thing that is moderately useful that outsiders can do is to capture the leader- it times of chaos, it's not easy. This reminds me very much of the deal with Joseph Kony. Even though many countries have made a commitment to catch him if possible, it still hasn't happened and people are still being murdered.  I guess it comes with the power, but it still always surprises me that other countries judge us if we don't jump in to help EVERY situation in EVERY country at that VERY second....not to say that we shouldn't help people, but I think that too much is expected of the United States. We can't solve everyone's problems-- we can't even solve our own........
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 08 Sep 12
       
      Very interesting study. Evolution in the making causes us to have more mental battles within us when faced with difficult decisions, especially when associated with life, death, and murder. I would be like most in the trolley situation and pull the lever but not push the large man. However, in the second situation I would say that I would smother the baby to save the village. Now what I might do in reality could be the exact opposite, but as for hypothetical thought, those would be my conclusions. 
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 09 Sep 12
       
      Exactly! How would people simply know if something is wrong and fail to give a valid reason. If you know something is wrong or right, there should be a reason to support it.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Sep 12
       
      "Moral dumbfounding" is a really interesting point in this article to me as it is true how people react to certain issues based on instincts. They react based on how they grew up with society, their background, and their upbringing. I think people should be discussing why they really think certain "social issues" are wrong, even if they do not hurt other people.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree completely, there are so many critical factors brought in that make bias towards one side.  There needs to be much more support and concrete evidence as to why a certain issue is morally wrong, not just a gut feeling.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Sep 12
       
      After listening to this podcast, I would probably agree with most people about pulling the lever and not pushing the man, as it is more personal in some way. Then as for the baby, I do not think I could do that even if it did save more people. As for deriving from apes in that morality form, I am just not sure about that yet, as I believe the world around your upbringing plays a big role.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 10 Sep 12
       
      Taking snapshots of a brain would really help scientists better understand the way a brain works which can eventually lead to advances in society.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 10 Sep 12
       
      When reading what could be known as a controversial issue, we constantly ask ourselves "do we agree with that?". The scenarios explained in paragraph three of Hot Morality are the same. Yes, while the man purchasing a chicken and performing activities is odd, it isn't wrong and it is harmless. Topics like these are what causes discussions and also tests the morality of an issue. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 10 Sep 12
       
      Moal dumbfounding.   I think it's interesting that people that live today think that so many things are bad but do not know why.  When asked the question "why is it wrong?" many, after a deep thought, will say I don't know...  It just is.  We live in a society that knows that things are wrong but not why
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 14 Sep 12
       
      After reading this, you see how different countries around the world are and how difficult life is for people. It is extremely sad that the women have to go through so much when they have a baby. It isnt fair to them. They have a million more things that they have to be worried about and have to take care of themselves, unlike the women in Sweden. Hopefully one day, the way of living and surviving will be more equal all around the world.
    • laurenneiger
      laurenneiger on 19 Sep 12
       
      I believe that it is very true that even if humans give the same amount it feels more rewarding to give out of the goodness of our hearts than to be forced to.  People feel better about themselves if they are not forced, they make a compromise in their heads where if they give it will suddenly absolve them from all the other times they chose not to give. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that it's ignorant of the way that modern day Americans think about how people give birth all around  the world.  It's crazy how different the medical care is in a country such as Niger as compared to America let alone Sweden.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 14 Sep 12
       
      It is crazy to see how simple medical and comfort needs cannot be met for the women in Niger. These women have to go through this painful childbirth and on top of it there babies have such a slim rate of survival. We take so much for granted.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 19 Sep 12
       
      Paying taxes is essential to the survival of our economy and the well-being of our society. When it comes to paying taxes, most people aren't happy about having to do so. However, people don't always realize that by paying taxes now, they are helping the country be better off later. The amount of taxes that have to be paid can be painful, but it is rewarding for the whole country.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 21 Sep 12
       
      I do not think that letting Clint Eastwood speak on Mitt Romney's behalf was such a bad idea. Maybe if Clint Eastwood were to support Romney maybe Romney can get the support of Clint Eastwood's fan base. However attacking another candidate's supporters is not the smartest idea. No matter who you support we are all Americans and should not be attacked in a presidential fundraiser. Furthermore I have heard of plenty of rich people avoiding taxes who are not Obama supporters. You can look at the election polls all you want all that really matters is the end result.  
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 24 Sep 12
       
      This is interesting for this experiment not only uses one's personal background and experiences but also their biological background.  A lot of diseases such as depression and whatnot can be passed down through the generations of family and I feel like a lot of people forget to that into consideration. 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 24 Sep 12
       
      Being rich and successful throughout your life will, in the end, make you happy, but it does take some work to get there and you will have to experience hard times. It takes some "pain" to get to what makes us happy. You may be happy with the way things turned out and glad that you experienced the hard times to get to the good times.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 28 Sep 12
       
      It's interesting how he speaks of freedom as if it doesn't naturally come to us, but rather as something you earn.  He had to push the boundaries of the natural order to be able to successfully have the freedom he deserved and also wanted. 
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 08 Oct 12
       
      I would like to see some of this evidence he references (although I'm fairly certain it is included in his book), because I find this almost difficult to believe and, if it is true, quite frightening. I would not have been surprised if he said that it affects the politically informed some, but equally to the uninformed? That is a frightening thought. If being informed doesn't change how much it affects you, then what does? 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 08 Oct 12
       
      If I understood this article correctly, I believe that Shanto Iyengar is right in every way.  Everything that society sees through media is framed to be viewed a particular way.  The media has the power to display information the way they want society to view the material.  This is how a lot of people form their opinions when it comes to government and policy issues.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 08 Oct 12
       
      I think that framing is a real problem in relaying political information to the public and that if the populace had enough motivation and attention, it would be much more useful to require presidential candidates to put their ideas in an essay with graphs and supporting evidence. Debates just present a fraction of the information and  lead people to weakly supported opinions.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 10 Oct 12
       
      It's interesting how throughout this article the main point is letting the audience hear what they want to.  No matter what, there is going to be a bias towards your own political party; leaving the opposite candidate to hopelessly fight when the bias will still be stronger than the information supported. 
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 10 Oct 12
       
      It makes sense that people who are more adept to understanding another person's emotions are able to do so with the characters in the story. Seems like a redundant explanation if you ask me.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is an excellent observation and is evinced by children's particular delight in and gravitation towards stories. Children lack very much personal experience in the world and in life, and so they are naturally drawn to stories to help the m make sense of and prepare for the real world. 
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 12 Oct 12
       
      I believe that the best classic stories are those orally told, for they tend to hold the most emotion and power beyond the person telling it.  They are passed down generation to generation and their stories never truly die. 
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 12 Oct 12
       
      This article is very eye-opening.  Most people do not think about the people that they are fighting for or trying to represent.  They do not think of the way they are presenting the people.  A lot of times, poorer countries are depicted as inferior and wealthier countries, such as the US, are depicted as superior.  When trying to help a poor country most people focus on the people that are "helping," like celebrities. Instead, the focus should be on the people that we are trying to help.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 17 Oct 12
       
      I think it is unfair to cast political scientists as an impractical ivory tower elite. Theory is an important dynamic of any discipline, and political theory is still grounded in a potential application to improve society. There is a limited range of political ideas in practice and I think it is important to have highly specialized  people speculate on novel solutions to problems.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 26 Oct 12
       
      This is very interesting for it takes an approach that has nothing to do with religion but rather with evolution.  Many can say that these suspicions are used in regards with God and his doings but it's nice to see the other side in a scientifically proven way.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 29 Oct 12
       
      This is interesting for I am a very visual learner and it takes me a lot of different subjects to look at for me to be able to study and learn effectively.  Sometimes words aren't the most important but rather the way it sticks in your mind is what matters most.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 29 Oct 12
       
      this article/guide is an extremely helpful tool to help someone make sure that a presentation they are giving gets their point across.  These points will ensure that the audience is captivated and stays engaged in the presentation. 
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 02 Nov 12
       
      Being on opposite sides of the spectrum must be so difficult when there are so many ideas clashing together one certain issue.  however, it is the duty of our politicians to be able to set aside these issues and further bring something to the table for the whole of America.  Backing out of a deal last minute is pugnacious and disrespectful to Obama and to the others who would have benefited from this act.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 02 Nov 12
       
      In the past, political parties could be very diverse when major events occurred in the nation and would be more unified in the times without major events.  Being diverse is brought on because of decisions and policies that arise from the major events.  Being able to more unified makes things in the House and Senate run more smoothly.  As years have progressed, both the Republicans and Democrats, have become more unified through good and bad times in the nation.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 12 Nov 12
       
      This cannot raise scores or change the outlook of the community, but I think that this will help raise the spirits of the students attending that school and will help raise school pride to everyone in the community.  This is just the first step to pursuing a bright future for the students and society that they live in.
    • Kristi Kniest
      Kristi Kniest on 12 Nov 12
       
      The people of Athens set an example for many countries centuries after their time.  The only way for a government to thrive and be successful is to use the resources given. These resources will allow the government to take opportunities that are given to them, as well as, learning from mistakes they made in certain decisions they made.
    • laurenneiger
      laurenneiger on 12 Nov 12
       
      I think this strategy was extremely interesting.  I personally would have never thought to take the action that they did.  I thought it was really interesting and a different way of going about a problem
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 16 Nov 12
       
      This is in conjunction to how corporations may have too much power.  Who should be the leader? Should there be one? A small group? A network? Who holds the ultimate power?
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 25 Nov 12
       
      Humans natural reaction when they are getting attacked is to form a bias.  There will always be a form of bias for most people have a hard time admitting that they are wrong and someone else is right.  Even in politics, one may agree with a democratic idea but won't admit it for they are republic.  We must all try our best to remain open-minded to all ideas to benefit everyone in our society.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 26 Nov 12
       
      This is definitely an invasion of privacy, although it may be effective.  People do have a tendency by nature to ignore such situations that make them uncomfortable though, leaving it to not be successful with many Americans. 
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 03 Dec 12
       
      I never knew, and I find it quite intriguing, that there was no border patrol until 1924.
    • Chantelle Cichon
      Chantelle Cichon on 09 Dec 12
       
      I believe that standardization is easier said than done.  There is no such thing as a Utopian society for there are so many different views, believes, lifestyles, etc. that can affect a whole bigger picture in a much more complex manner.  Even if one does attempt to standardize, there will still be someone who disagrees and wants to cause, once again, another revolution.
    • Jason van Rijn
      Jason van Rijn on 10 Dec 12
       
      Unlike hard sciences, you cannot repeat an experiment many times with slight modifications to certain variables. Having some kind of model system to test theories is wishful thinking and impossible because of the infinite variables in social situations but it would just be nice to run simulations of certain welfare programs
  • Lauren Dudley on 09 Sep 12
     
    "moral dubfounding"
Caitlin Scott

The endowment effect: It’s mine, I tell you | The Economist - 11 views

www.economist.com/11579107

shared by Caitlin Scott on 12 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Lo and behold, when they tried the same experiments using bone and rope toys, no endowment effect was seen. Food is vital. Toys are not.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 12 Sep 11
       
      I think this is a great point of animals in an environment understanding exactly what they need to survive and not stretching their means for what a human would do, trying to obtain many matieral objects when food is crucial.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 15 Sep 11
       
      Do you think humans in our society would have a similar reaction if they were desparate for food?
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 15 Sep 11
       
      I absolutely think they would. Humans love food, just like animals. We understand that food is vital. But more than that, humans (especially Americans) have a desire for food. That is why when there is an opportunity to obtain free food, everyone participates
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Kaitlyn. Animals view food on a way more primitive level because they don't have the access to it that we do. To put it on a human level, it would be like not feeding someone for two weeks and then offering them the choice between a video game and food. Animals don't have the same eating habits that humans do. While we do save for the future, we tend to eat more than necessary for survival which is the amount that animals eat. 
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      I also agree with Jon your writ bro if i was starving for a couple weeks i would most def. pick food over a game shit anyone would its survival at that point i may even eat the person offering me the food grrrrrrrrrr
  • Their assumption had always been that individuals act to maximise their welfare (the defining characteristic of economic man, or Homo economicus).
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 15 Sep 11
       
      This is the mindset for most people in today's world. Everyone is concerned with maximizing their own welfare; their own good. We value material goods over intrinsic value. Everyone feel as if everything resource or opportunity they have that they deserved it or that they worked for it. Humas are irrational place too much emphasis on value(which is the idea of the endowment effect)!!
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 15 Sep 11
       
      Are you using a figure of speech when you say most people in today's world? Humans are naturally predispositioned to be self-interested and resources are required for survival ergo interest in goods of moentary value
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 15 Sep 11
       
      Im saying majority of humans have this mindset. They are self-interested!
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 16 Sep 11
       
      I agree with that because I would go one further to say that in a generality, everybody lies and is modest to express that notion of sharing the wealth where they would want to maximize it for themselves in the material sense. there are people who inherently want to go out of a whim to do good in spite of this aspect of personalities of western civilization in this day and age but it is a matter of awareness of the circumstances presented to the individual in relation to the market and the polis.
    • laurenneiger
      laurenneiger on 17 Sep 12
       
      this is extremely true in our society today, people are constantly looking out for only themselves and they are attempting to maximize their own welfare even if it as at the cost of other's.  
  • once someone owns something, he places a higher value on it than he did when he acquired it—an observation first called “the endowment effect” about 28 years ago by Richard Thaler, who these days works at the University of Chicago.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 16 Sep 11
       
      I had never really thought of this concept in this way before. Now that i think about it, i realize that i do this also. when i get something, i automatically, subconsciously increase the value. it's very interesting knowing that i can also relate to it.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 16 Sep 11
       
      This was definitely a good way of starting this article-- by making it relatable. The person who posted before this proved my point, they said that they realize that placing a higher value on something after attaining it. This goes to show how material-based our society is today, everyone is so possessive and truly LOVES their "things," enough to even look at something that they bought and feel any sense of feeling toward it, and in this case, that feeling is respect [for what they got]. 
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is an interesting concept. I had never thought of it that way before. I always thought of people viewing ownership in the way of "the grass is always greener", but I can see where I have placed more value on something simply because I came to own it.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      I must agree with the author on this point. In an especially materialistic society, it is difficult not to place a high value onto possessions and it is seemingly only right to do so. My question of this theory stems from whether only materialistic economies would see this behavioral trait take place. Perhaps a better question would be to ask whether or not a capitalist society can avoid being capitalistic and therefore avoid placing increased notions of value onto possessions. 
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      hell no in this society this is not true at all for example once you by that nice chevy truck from the dealer if you want to trade it in a month after you atleast lose 8 gran if not more i dont believe in this concept at all not a good way to start of the article. People tend to value what they have because thats what they own even if your neighbor had a more exspensive car you will still think your car has higher value and is overall better than theres.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 19 Sep 12
       
      This statement definitely relates to the world we live in today. We are all buying the latest technology or getting the trendiest clothing. The average person will never be satisfied. They will always be wanting more or striving for the next best thing. They will want what "everyone" else has. For example, the iPhone is really popular in today's society. Everybody is going out and buying this product, not just because it is a great piece of art, but because others have it. People today will never be satisfied and will always be wanting more. 
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with this statement.  Because of self pride you place more value on the "thing" you got/bought.  I guess what I'm trying to say is "This is what I got, and it represents me, therefore it has more value".
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      For me personally I do not place a higher value on things that I own. I lower the value in my mind. Once i actually own it the item becomes less important to me because i know its mine and I will probably always have the object. The only way the value goes up for me if someone else wants it or wants to take it from me.
  • ...20 more annotations...
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 16 Sep 11
       
      on the lighter side of things this chocolate and mug experiment shows that no matter what the object is there can always be a certain sentiment about an object where you will hold on to something you dont need rather than trade if for something more useful. personal i would take the chocolate.but i guess that depends on where i got the mug and what is said.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I think that there is more inherit value in the mug than in the chocolate bar. To keep with the lighter side of this experiment, I really wouldn't trade a free car for a bike. I don't feel that the chocolate bar was an accurate counter object.  I agree with Magen that it would depend on what is said and the circumstances
    • Mangala Kanayson
      Mangala Kanayson on 16 Sep 11
       
      In a college environment in which both are scarce, a mug has more long-term value than a single chocolate bar.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 16 Sep 11
       
      Yeah, they aren't really analyzing all of the factors. Even though they may want the chocolate more right then, most people understand that something that will last longer is more valuable. The chocolate will be gone once they eat it but they could have that mug their whole life.
  • The endowment effect has nothing to do with wealth (it is not as if chocolate bars and coffee mugs matter) or transaction costs (in most experiments these are zero). Not even emotional attachment, whatever that means, can really be called in as an explanation, since the effect is both instantaneous and sometimes felt even by those who buy and sell for a living.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is interesting because it shows how complex individuals can become without a concrete rational explanation. We the mentality that we must give value to our belongs.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think this concept is so interesting. I think the fact that we attach sentimental value to things we own is a big factor. It's really amazing to see the exact same instinct when it comes to other animals as well. 
  • When presented with a choice, 60% of the chimps preferred peanut butter to juice. However, when they were endowed with peanut butter, 80% of them chose to keep it instead of exchanging it for juice. It was as if the peanut butter became more valuable as soon as it was possessed. And an opposite endowment effect was observed when the chimps were given juice.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 16 Sep 11
       
      This just shows, although it was just an experiment, that we do not care the extra amount of effort our choice of value will actually cost us. We have this pride in value that we offer and we strive to "validate" it.
  • surprisingly reluctant to trade a coffee mug they had been given for a bar of chocolate,
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 16 Sep 11
       
      i would keep my coffee mug too, but not for the reason in which it means more, but in the sense that it is more useful.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
       
      But, an animal other than humans would pick chocolate because it is food. And food is more valuable to them. This is another example of the outcome depending on the situation. Such as, is the person poor? is the person starving and struggling to find food. Or is the person well off enough to not value a candy bar(food source) so high. Now my question is.. would a person that is starving, poor, and in search of food be reluctant to give up an empty coffee mug for a bar of chocolate?
    • Jacqueline Ramsay
      Jacqueline Ramsay on 16 Sep 11
       
      I believe a person who is poor and most likely has very few possessions would not let their coffee mug go due to personal reasons. A chocolate bar is temporary pleasure while the possession of the mug may bring a more permament sense of material "wealth."
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      I would like to see this experiment done with people of different social classes. I can't see any real reason why someone in a lower financial class would opt to have a Hershey's bar over a mug from a utilitarian perspective. While someone who is starving might opt for the bar, the only other group which would opt for the "temporary pleasure" would be one who has not useful need of a coffee mug, which would be those in the middle class. 
  • All in all, the rational conclusion is that humans are irrational animals.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 16 Sep 11
       
      Really? It took them discovering this endowment effect to see that humans are irrational? Almost everything we have read so far proves this point. We think actually touching someone and killing them is worse than pulling a lever and killing them. That's pretty irrational and that's just one example from our readings so far.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
       
      I was thinking the same thing while reading this whole article.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 17 Sep 12
       
      Well I think they were just saying that for conclusion purposes, but I get what your saying. 
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 18 Sep 12
       
      I agree this is a pretty obvious conclusion but I not sure it deserves the negative connotation that the article gives it. I think it is  a good thing that we are not purely rational creatures.  Our emotions are what take the place of rational in certain situations and think emotions are a good thing for us to have as emotions are what set our moral standards to a certain point and without them we might live a very different world than the one we enjoy today.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 18 Sep 12
       
      I agree with the first person, our society for the most part believes that actually touching someone to kill them rather than pulling a lever to kill them is worse, our society is very irrational. I think we realize this throughout the article and other articles we have read... they are saying it for conclusion purposes... it is just a cheesy conclusion 
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      As human beings, I think there is a certain amount of pride and dignity that goes along with owning something.  Yes, it is yours.  But it also represents something that you paid for with your hard earned cash.  I think that's something the free market will always have trouble accounting for; those vague, ambiguous, but incredibly powerful personal human values.
  • “I AM the most offensively possessive man on earth. I do something to things. Let me pick up an ashtray from a dime-store counter, pay for it and put it in my pocket—and it becomes a special kind of ashtray, unlike any on earth, because it’s mine.”
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 16 Sep 11
       
      While I have not read "The Fountainhead," I have read other works of Ayn Rand and there are very similar themes about individualism and holding value to oneself and one's belongings.
  • uspect the answer is that, in the evolutionary past, giving things up, even when an apparently fair exchange seemed to be on offer, was just too risky.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      I absolutely love this analysis. I am always fascinated by evolutionary explanations for irrational human behavior. 
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 17 Sep 11
       
      I think this part is very interesting, because today we are very evolved. To think that there is still a primeval part of the human brain is something to think about. We have differentiated ourselves from animals do to our way of thinking; however, we still have an aspect of that proposing we might not be as advanced or different than we thought from an animal.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 18 Sep 12
       
      Well, genetically, we are less than 1% different than our chimpanzee relatives. Thus, this close relationship on the evolutionary chain made sure not to leave out certain concepts within our minds. As a result, we still feel the need to keep what is ours, what we worked for, what we see as valuable simply because it is ours. 
  • In societies with markets, customers can go elsewhere. But in a small, tribal society there may be no alternative seller. In that case, those who were reluctant to trade might get better prices.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 15 Sep 12
       
      I think this is an interesting point, after all the comparisons with the chimps we get to see that even as humans it depends on where we live that can affect how we trade.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      It's true, though. The past continues to shape us, even if we don't notice it. There are "habits" that a species will take up (and sometimes leave behind) for a very long time because of the benefits it gave for a long time. Also, I think there's the issue of sentimentality. Humans can be pretty sentimental creatures, whether they want to be or not, and may place a higher value because of that.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 19 Sep 12
       
      i think this is true because i would never go out and just buy anything. i always try to find the best deals. 
  • not prefer coffee mugs
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 17 Sep 12
       
      I feel like the reason for this is just because the mug probably costs more and in that sense people will value it. But then again, doesn't chocolate provide instant gratification (and repetitive gratification for that matter)? Wouldn't that be more desirable?
  • The endowment effect was controversial for years. The idea that a squishy, irrational bit of human behaviour could affect the cold, clean and rational world of markets was a challenge to neoclassical economists
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      Human beings are obviously irrational... the market wants to see everything in a black white sort of way- humans will base their transactions on their self interests and how they can gain. Not everything can be based on this as humans act with emotion and instinct, what they feel is right in the moment, even if its just that feeling of posession.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 19 Sep 12
       
      Pride is part of Human naure, therefore, anything relating to them or back to them will make them have that "little nice feeling inside" which is why the value of the object is higher.
  • who recently had some expensive bottles of wine stolen, observes that he is “now confronted with precisely one of my own experiments: these are bottles I wasn't planning to sell and now I'm going to get a cheque from an insurance company and most of these bottles I will not buy.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      This is an interesting point as he points out that he wanted to keep the bottles as he was not going to sell them, but then once they were stolen and he received money for them, he would not replace them. I guess if you did deeper into this, you could say he found he was not as attached to them as he thought, or he did not want other ones, he wanted his own.. but who can really say except for Dr. Thaler.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 18 Sep 12
       
      Getting food is a survival instinct. No one wants to starve to death. So getting and savoring the most filling food is the priority. Toys don't really matter because everyone gets bored of them eventually.
  • That goods and rights such as pollution permits, radio spectrum and mobile-telephone licences do not inexorably flow towards the most efficient distribution worries the legal scholars charged with designing fair allocations.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 18 Sep 12
       
      Those writing and dealing with public policy absolutely cannot expect to give certain allocations to one group and expect it to diffuse out to eventually help society overall. Instead, policy framers must distribute certain endowments accordingly among various groups/organizations with the assumption that nothing is going to sort itself out.
  • The idea that a squishy, irrational bit of human behaviour could affect the cold, clean and rational world of markets was a challenge to neoclassical economists.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think that this concept of holding an object at such value is already interesting in itself. It is a natural tendency for humans to automatically be connected to something that becomes theirs. It's that primal aspect that was from our evolution as human beings. Humans are naturally territorial and are always looking out for their possesions, rather than that of others.
  • Whereas coffee mugs generate an endowment effect, tokens that can be exchanged for coffee mugs do not.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 19 Sep 12
       
      This part demonstrates the tactility that we have as humans. It is instinct to want the actual item and not something of equal value to that item. Hard economics would dictate that there should be no difference between the two. You are still getting equal value for an item (albeit in a delayed manner). But we as humans do not want delay.  When we were little and went to Chuck E Cheese, what was the thing we want to get the most? Tickets. We wanted to win the big jackpot and get tickets. But the tickets are not what we valued. It was the (semi)economic possibility that we could turn those tickets into the prize that we all craved. We had no sentimental attachment to the tickets. Every other kid there had them. But when we turned them in for a prize, that prize was ours. No one else had the same exact prize as you. This, truly, is what the article is hinting at: The concept of possession and manipulation of our own self-appointed economic values. 
  • Homo economicus is a rarer species than neoclassical taxonomists would like to believe
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      This article seems to be meant to show us the problems with the Market point of view, but we know all this and Adam Smith knew this. Some government (minimal) is obviously required to sort of keep irrational behavior from slowing the economy
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 19 Sep 12
       
      This article kind of reminds me of the TED talk video from a couple weeks ago. We as humans have different attachments to objects that we 'own'. And it is interesting that the tokens did not have the endowment effect, but that just backs up the experiments of the TED video. If we all exchanged goods with money directly or by trading and bartering then maybe that would be the most optimal way to do things, but in our world of capitalism where wall street investors just stare at a screen and are not dealing with the money directly probably do not feel the endowment effect and make risky decisions that cause stuff like the crisis in 2007.
  • evolutionarily beneficial
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 19 Sep 12
       
      People sometimes forget how much of our human interaction, deliberation, and decision is evolutionarily innate and survivalistic. We act in a constant state of evaluative game theory with each other on a day to day basis. It is congenital for us to think, decide, and act certain ways; we are quite literally biologically inclined to do so. It is and always has been a matter of self-preservation, group preservation, or personal interest preservation within our species, as with any other surviving species. If a collective species fails to do this, as evolutionary history has proved, it eventually ceases to exist. This article is merely tapping into our most primitive explanations for why we do things. What discerns the human species from other species' is our power to reconsider logically, reasonably, and empathetically, and to act upon those considerations while putting aside what may be our more natural inclinations. The main problem I see here is, how then do you argue and reason with a mental process that has been in the making for millions of years? 
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 19 Sep 12
       
      That is a great point.  I don't think you can make an argument for it and I really don't think anyone can change that.  If we are rational and irrational at the same time then not one person could agree with another on how to actually change that, or even if they believed in the existence of this thought process among humans.
  • The value someone puts on something should not, therefore, depend on whether he actually owns it.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 19 Sep 12
       
       i agree with this statement because majority of society is always trying to find ways to maximize their well beings
  • Valencia Hamilto on 16 Sep 11
     
    I agree with Felecia's comment that that's how the majority of people's mindset is in today's world. People have developed a type of personality where they are hoarders. They will hold on to everything they have because they feel like they deserve it and no one else can have it, no matter the price others are willing to pay.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • shane paulson on 16 Sep 11
     
    I agree with Valencia. In today's competitive-natured world, people tend to take anything they can because they can. In many cases, these needs may be unnecessary, however they will be taken in fear of someone else taking them first.
  • Mitchell Burris on 16 Sep 11
     
    In a lot of cases I think people (I can't account for the chimps) make value judgments on the things in their possession. I for one would rather keep the mug because I know that I can get a lot of use out of it for some time to come. If I kept and ate the chocolate it is a one time flash in the pan deal and once it's gone it's gone. Though I'm sure the endowment effect manifests itself in human nature I don't think that I value things, save for those that I have a sentimental attachment to, simply because it is mine but rather because I assign a personal sense of value to it.
  • Emily Shandorf on 17 Sep 12
     
    Food is important and vital. But people can adapt, like animals, and get used of new foods that they can find. People and animals for whatever food you will give them they will take advantage of it and eat it. Everyone will always have favorites and will choose their favorite if they had to choose between two foods. In this case the chimps preferred the peanut butter instead of the juices. I found interesting reading that people and animals prefer food instead of toys. How they say: "Food is vital. Toys are not". I agree on food being more important for humans instead of toys, but what for a baby's prospective? Will they choose food over their favorite toy?
  • gina Hogrefe on 18 Sep 12
     
    #1gina Hogrefe 6 minutes ago - Edit - Delete   "The endowment effect" is an interesting concept. Reluctant to trade our coffee mugs for chocolate is the moral of the story. That and that human animals are irrational which confirms that the value we put on things may be just as unreasonable as well. Can the objective of the article be that humans are even more like our chimp relatives than we previously thought?
nsamuelian

The Trap - We Will Force You To Be Free (1 of 6) - YouTube - 2 views

www.youtube.com/watch

shared by nsamuelian on 25 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 25 Sep 11
       
      i find this ironic with the title of the video. "forcing" someone to be free is making them to do something out of their will; you are making them do it whether they want to or not. this is ironic because it says that people will be free/ think free, yet the title paradoxically states that you MUST do something, in this case, be free. 
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 25 Sep 11
       
      I believe that is the point though, as the title shows how we have lost our 'true' freedom in place of the established form of freedom which we experience today.  Berlin's ideas of positive liberty and negative liberty for example. "The masses who did not realize what true freedom was, had to be coerced" 6:10 
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 25 Sep 11
       
      This is why people say "we are never free." The idea between positive liberty and negative liberty is an important one because on one hand, liberty is linked between individual and social freedom and on the other hand we have the absence of coercion by other human beings. Essentially, we are free even with the established form of freedom, as Mike stated because it protects the society as a whole. For instance, some people would rather not wear a seatbelt, but to bring the best protection, it would be best to wear our seatbelts. Does that mean we are not free? Because if we do not follow that law, we could be hit with a fine. We are free!
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 26 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Felicia, freedom is not free and there have been thousands of American soldiers that have paid the price so we can live free in the U.S ,but there are so many things that are not free and that is the reason people feel they have to rebel. People still think freely ,but the way we are raised in this society has changed the meaning of "true freedom".
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 26 Sep 11
       
      I find this notion of forcing you to free. like in terms of forcing someone to consider taking a view of yours you essentially do not agree with at all. Thus is the brim in certain senses of advocacy and community outreaches. They would *like* for people to exercise the right to consider the following circumstances of something that comes about as a result of their own actions or start to care for something they had over looked in the scope of society. in some instances its true that people come to learn something new, but if anything some people learn they flat out don't care because other people do not and are as self serving as they can be to the notion of freedom. Then the arguments and law breaking come into effect where people want the establishment of one view of an argument to overpower the notion of others. Freedom is gained by forcing another side to lose. Essentially its never free in that someone has to have their circumstances of preference go unfulfilled.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 26 Sep 11
       
      I think this video discusses a deeper meaning trying to get us to really understand what freedom is. It is amazing how we as Americans take for granted our ability to make choices on our own, but at the same time, those choices are typically coerced into what society, social norms and the government are trying to get us to do. Smoking, drinking are obvious answers as we have been raised at a young age and classes discussing how smoking is bad for us and can/will eventually kill us. I do not smoke but this instance of society and the government trying to tell me what i should not do, is not how freedom is about. I understand the best interests of the polis and so forth requires restrictions for security, but the government needs to let us make our own choices and deal with the resulting consequences of those choices.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 26 Sep 11
       
      I definitely agree with Lauren and Matt in that society and its norms have shaped our view of freedom and it sometimes brings to question what freedom actually is. The idea and concept of freedom is something that not everyone understands. Freedom is not being able to kill each other without persecution. I think that its something that can not be defined by mere words. It is a state of being that is intrinsic in this nation.
  • Lauren Petta on 26 Sep 11
     
    I also agree with Felicia and Matt. There is a link between individual and social freedom. We live freely and are free thinkers to a certain extent. However, we must follow certain social rules and laws because they are made to protect and better society as a whole. I think that matt was completely correct in saying that the way we are raised in this society has altered the meaning of "true freedom". There are certain laws that we have to follow or else we will be punished, however, we do still have the ability to challenges these laws before court.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Kiera Murphy on 26 Sep 11
     
    I definitely agree. I believe that we are extremely privileged to live in the United States. To complain that we aren't free is almost disrespectful. It's our duty as Americans to strive to follow social laws to protect our society as a whole the the well being of everyone. I believe that the U.S. needs to unite in order to solve our problems. Defend that we are proud to live in a free country, and not look like we're divided. Whether this means sacrificing more personal wealth to help the victims of the recession or creating more jobs or following our nation's laws. I believe we owe it to the American people and our Nation because we have been granted the gift of Freedom. All over the world people put their lives on the line to receive Freedom when we've been handed it to us at birth.
  • Andrew Rothans on 26 Sep 11
     
    I find that "forcing" someone to be free is not possible. You are making someone feel a certain way or think a certain way. The video states that people are free to think and feel but in the video it really says you must think a certain way to be free. This really doesnt make you free or give a strong sense of freedom. I feel we must make our own choices and decisions based on our feelings to be free.
  • Eric Henderson on 26 Sep 11
     
    The concept of "forcing" somebody to be free just baffles me. First off, nobody can force you to be free, as it is a choice, in my opinion, that rests only with the individual. Secondly, Forcing somebody to be free takes away the actuality of being free because they did not make the choice to be free in this instant. In all reality, nobody can force anybody to be free.
  • anonymous on 26 Sep 11
     
    The idea that freedom inspires people, as stated by the video, can be just as good a fact as a very unfortunate trap. There is a fine line between the idea of freedom and loss of control. I find it interesting that the video focused on the French Revolution as an example, because this movement is a great example of uneducated masses fighting for something better than their life as they know it, but not exactly knowing what actual freedom means and how it will affect their lives if changes within their government are made.
Quang Chu

http://frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/iyengarinterview2009.pdf - 8 views

frameworksinstitute.org/...iyengarinterview2009.pdf

shared by Quang Chu on 29 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 04 Oct 12
       
      It seems that priming and framing have a lot in common. I can tell though that from the information I get from this article, framing is more about molding your opinion over time while priming is more about getting a one time reaction from a person. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 08 Oct 12
       
      I can see how framing would definitely work to sway peoples opinions one way or the other, and i also think its true that it can effect educated and uneducated people alike, and it was a very good point to raise.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 08 Oct 12
       
      I thought this was a great article. I wish that more people understood some of these concepts that seem like common sense. For example the article talked about putting a face to a problem and how this was a ridiculous concept. Many Americans want to blame say the president or the former present for what shape this country is in today but in reality they do not even hold enough power to make significant changes, more likely it is much deeper issues that are creating all of the issues that we see.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 08 Oct 12
       
      It is semi-obvious that the average voter isn't rational, but I found it interesting that this article believes that even a voter who's largely filled out their schema (threw a new new vocab term in there.. pretty nice, i know) can be influenced by the way a situation is framed.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 08 Oct 12
       
      I agree. Like yeah presidents have used some framing techniques to sway our thoughts on certain issues, but it's solely a person's responsibility to think for themselves and make their own decisions based on how they view things and how they want the country run, with politics and other issues that arise on our daily basis.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 07 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Iyengar's statement that American society assumes that one believes that individuals should be held responsible due to the country's cherished concept of individualism. Since there is so much appreciation for individuality in the U.S., one automatically concludes that individuals must be held responsible for the workings of society. However, we also need to understand the importance of policies and those that put the policies into place to better comprehend the American system. 
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 08 Oct 12
       
      I also think that instead of blaming someone, people should looks towards the options of how to get out of the situation.  If someone failed instead of continually blaming them, find a way to get out of the problem.  When you sit around blaming people you are not going to accomplish anything.  
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 08 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Caitlin. Voters should be looking for what the party has to offer, not what the other is blaming for. Finding a solution to issues is important to fix society.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 07 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the statement, "...people behaved differently when outcomes were framed wither as potential gains or potential losses." The outcome of an event depends on the outlook of a certain individual. If they believe the outcome will be good, it will be good, and vise versa. Your outcome can be what you make of it.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 08 Oct 12
       
      I completely agree with Devin on this statement. If you have a bad attitude, things will not get better and you will be constantly stuck in rut you currently find yourself in. But if you turn things around with a positive spin, your odds are much better. When someone is persuaded a certain way, then yes their outcomes will also be framed that way. Framing really does influence a citizens understanding of public issues. 
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 08 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Devin as well. Pessimism or Optimism plays a major factor in the outcome of an event. If someone goes into something with a poor outlook, the chances of it coming out super positive is unlikely and if one is optimistic, they have a better chance of making the best out of the situation.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 08 Oct 12
       
      It's all about the power of positive thought. Mind over matter and all that. It reminds me of a few articles I've read in the past about how people can make themselves physically ill solely because they are stressed or worry too much. When a story is framed in a positive way, people tend to believe that everything will turn out okay. But when stories are framed in a negative way, this can lead people to worry and stress unnecessarily, especially because news is often exaggerated to make headlines. 
  • ...8 more annotations...
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 07 Oct 12
       
      Some view the issue of poverty as "a consequence of human laziness or lack of initiative", but for the most part, that's looking at the issue from a wealthy person's point of view. If you ask someone who really is living in poverty they might argue that they are not given enough resources to progress or to one day be living a middle class life. On one side, people in poverty are being blamed, on the other side the people in poverty are blaming the government for their lack of support. 
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 08 Oct 12
       
      By putting faces on these problems, they are giving the problem an embodiment. This can be detrimental because the face that can be given can later become a stereotype, and give that problem a specific face from a specific group, that later can be discriminated against because it is seen as the living embodiment of that problem.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 08 Oct 12
       
      I think that by putting faces on problems, society can efficiently blame someone else for something they knew they could help. For example all of the propositions that people are upset with after elections, they blame on politicians. In actuality they know they could have put their say into the election and then the face would no longer be necessary. Faces are very useful for passive aggressiveness, but don't really help the situation in most cases.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 08 Oct 12
       
      For some reason Diigo won't let me respond to a certain passage. However, I am responding to the passage that deals with poverty. The idea in this passage is that people, given no external factors, tend to blame poverty on the individual and as something that results from being lazy and non dedicated. However, when exposed to footage of poverty, people are more likely to blame politicians and  forces that are outside of the control of the impoverished.  Naturally, people like to think that they are better than most others. So when they hear of people being poor, it must be just because they didn't have the same motivation as you, right? However, when people in poverty are humanized, we tend to be less critical of them and more critical of those who support such a system of poverty.  Visual stimulus can do wonders for inciting action in a person. If I told you "there are sick dogs in America" most people would not have much a reaction. However, if they are shown a 2 minute commercial showing sad and dying dogs, they may be more likely to take action to help the animals.  We are visual creatures. The ways in which visual stimulus frames our mode of thought is incredible. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 08 Oct 12
       
      I can understand why people's decisions could be swayed by the framing. Differences in the way you present something can definitely influence how strong or weak your point comes across. I also agree that it can affect both informed and uninformed people.  
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 08 Oct 12
       
      I find this very interesting. I think this is a tactic used by various sources (politicians, media) in order to distract people from the issue at hand. What is more sensational will grab our attention much faster than keeping account of what is going on. 
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 08 Oct 12
       
      This article is very interesting. I Agree with Karina, I think people all around the world use this method to get peoples attention and focus it on something they want. When media focus on something special to sell more papers or magazines and presidents focus on something to get liked more.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 08 Oct 12
       
      yeah totally, propaganda is used constantly. Tv stations and new papers only show what they want or need in roder to sell a person, such as obama. They will emphasize what they want, especially with the election. Because its more divided than ever many people stick with their own kind and will watch fox news rather than CNN, if their voting republican.There really aren't any neutral sources anymore.The big issue is people being able to evaluate the truth and whats in their best interests like the article says.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 08 Oct 12
       
      This article goes hand in hand with the events that are going on right now. The election is coming up and we are seeing the 'framing' of issues from two different perspectives. The problem is when someone who is trying to make rational decisions on the election is fed biased and 'framed' information from the media. The facts are not complete, and the context of events and policies are not fully fledged out. We are left with shells of ideas that we must process in order to make decisions. For most people that is good enough and these debates and biased news sources only confirm their personal bias. Such a large percent of the population already knows who they are voting for before they get information. For the smaller population of people that want to make a rational informed decision they are left with sorting through the rubbish.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 08 Oct 12
       
      It's interesting to see that the effects of framing can be so broad, but that really is what everyone sees, we have a tendency to assume faults for other people. I just like that they're pointing out real common behaviors of people
    • Quang Chu
      Quang Chu on 08 Oct 12
       
      This is very interesting to me because it shows how people's decision could be framed. The politicians can control or use media as their tool to get people's attention. And i think that people should stand up and solve their problem on their own instead of blaming on the society and government which will not help them that much
  • Lauren Dudley on 05 Oct 12
     
    From my understanding of the article, thematic framing is better as it gives a broader sense to the audience and allows them to see the actual underlying issues. While, with episodic framing, it just focuses on the incident at hand and kind of puts a face/individual for the cause of the incident. Thematic framing should be used more in that we can see where society needs to be fixed, and what politicians are helping or not helping. The people need more understanding in order to help weave out the bad officials or politicians in our society. Also, people definitely base their opinion off of judgement of character here in America, when we really need to see how they work and their actions are affecting our society, especially now. Americans cannot take shortcuts with the news and facts about politics as we can sometimes be pointed in the wrong direction.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Emily Shandorf on 07 Oct 12
     
    I find interesting the fact how they say that Americans are found very uninformed about politics. They use this kind of "information shortcuts". They also use heuristics for understanding and creating and a political opinion. People are just relaying on economists or other experts as sources and this way it doesn't give many opportunities to other people that have stores to continue and be successful.
  • Finn Sukkestad on 08 Oct 12
     
    I think that framing is sort of a problem in politics, its like faking it almost. Focusing on the little things that people for some reason notice and care about like how you dress and carry yourself but don't really know the positions of the people running. This must have become much more of a problem when the television came out and all of a sudden it wasn't just what was said on the radio any more, it became a celebrity contest. It is like that video clip we watched with gore trying to intimidate Bush, he was trying to frame himself as someone he isn't rather than just voicing his opinions and stances on political issues and letting this speak for themselves to the voters.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 08 Oct 12
     
    Framing is a problem because it draws the focuss of the poeple to areas they should not be concerned with; however, it is necessary for the candidates in elections. They have to make sure the people see what they want them to see. There do not give the people wrong information, but present it in a manner that benefits them. Every president has used the framing technique, but it is up to the people to look passed how things are presented to them and make educated decisions regaurding politics with all things aside.
  • Kelsey Fratello on 08 Oct 12
     
    I agree with Shanto Iyengar that it all depends on which type of framing that people are exposed to that determine who they hold accountable, society or individuals. The people that are exposed to episodic framing on issues like poverty and crime, hold individuals accountable. On the hand, the people that are exposed to thematic frames, they held societal and political figures responsible for things going on. I also found it interesting that they felt Americans are uniformed when it comes to politics, but how they are not ignorant.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Oct 12
     
    I felt that this articles underlying objective is know who is broadcasting your news and do not trust the media. In our information age something like fifty percent of all the media is controlled by only six corporations.
  • Amanda Garcia on 14 Oct 12
     
    It's really unfortunate that the human mind will overlook facts and good arguments for shortcuts that they can understand quicker and that appeal more emotionally to them. It's a great metal development in other areas of our lives, but when it is important that we understand more than just the basics of something, it is not to our benefit that we can allow ourselves to be convinced without question the information that is conveyed to us from any political sphere. Any leader can portray him/herself as a genuine person in the media, but that is just acting for the sake of a few more votes. Framing gives the public an idea of what to think before they've even began to think.
Finn Sukkestad

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/scott_seeing.pdf - 0 views

yalepress.yale.edu/...scott_seeing.pdf

shared by Finn Sukkestad on 07 Dec 12 - No Cached
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 07 Dec 12
       
      I think a lot of people in this world tend to settle for less instead of going for the best. We settle to take the road traveled more than the road less traveled. We as humans want to take the easy way out. We want to have the simplest solution to our problems and make them go away. I think that we should start aiming higher and going for our goals. If we are determined and keep our eye on the prize, anything is possible. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 10 Dec 12
       
      I believe the same thing. People tend to downgrade to the lowest level just to either get something done quicker or because they feel it isn't possible. Determination is key and I also believe that humans should strive to be something greater than they ever thought they could be. 
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 07 Dec 12
       
      Maybe if more people think in the same way as described earlier on in this introduction, then there would be less of a reason for people to hate government. Sometimes, it takes the ability to look at multiple perspectives to understand something. 
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 09 Dec 12
       
      Progress and resolutions are supposed to be achieved from past pas mistakes, however our desire to do things the easy way keeps us from attaining a high-quality outcome. Engineers of societies are often plagued by their desire to look good in front of the public rather than making decisions that are best for the community. Thus, policy framers are often faced with a decision between job security/popularity and good decision making.  
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 10 Dec 12
       
      i agree that if people stopped worrying about how they looked infront of people or their image in society, they would be able to make better decisions on what it best. Something might be better for society but they won't do it because it will look bad on their name. 
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 10 Dec 12
       
      Looking at the fourth element, I feel that the people can do something when the state is implementing a system into society. The fourth element says that society lacks capacity to resist. The workforce has the ability to halt production, so if they come together they can stop the state from doing whatever it is that their doing. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 10 Dec 12
       
      Having too much power in the states can be detrimental to the people that actually lives within these states. Agreeing with above, I feel as if the people should in fact do something to stop the state from implementing laws within a system that the whole of society has to follow. Most of the time the states don't know exactly what the people want or need so that case the voice of the people should be heard and stop the states from completely taking control. 
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 10 Dec 12
       
      I think that people in this country agree with solutions to problems that when implemented will not actually work.  For example, many young people support the solutions to health care and education without actually realizing that the things they think they are getting for free, are actually going to be paid for by them.  Instead of looking for total solutions to problems, people need to look for what they can do for the people around them.  The government is not going to have the solutions to these problems on a nation wide scale because the problem is too large.  Individual areas in this country have problems and the people closest to them with figure out the best solutions to them. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 10 Dec 12
       
      I agree with Caitlin. With such broad issues concerning the country, it is best to work within small sections to solve the problems. This is why we have Congress. But in my opinion, Congress has become too partisan on both parties to get anything solved.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Dec 12
       
      "Designed or planned social order is necessarily schematic; it always ignores essential features of any real, functioning social order". I really like this quote. I feel like a lot of times people try to simplify things way too much in order for an idea or practice to fit into a neat little box that can be easily understood when no, such things are never really simple. People tend to try to take the "easy" way out of understandings instead of, well, trying to understand. And this line of thinking can be harmful to all parties involved.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 10 Dec 12
       
      I like wat he writes about out capitalistic market, I agree that it takes away the humane aspect to anything when your only goal that you share with millions of other people is to make money, and to do so you must consume natural recources and then sell them for the highest price possible.  There is no selflessness to it there is just personal monetary gain, I think that when your only happiness is invested in money there is something wrong with the society we live in.
  • Brandon White on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think we as a society tend to demonize what we see as the "easy way." We cannot comprehend how people can get ahead of us by putting in less work. However, I feel that the easy way can often be the most efficient way of doing things. Not to displace the values of hard work or the like, but often the best way to succeed and get ahead is by doing things the easy way. For example, why take all the time at work to enter in numbers when there is a programming tool that does the work for you? Such a situation does not make you lazy or inefficient. It gives you the ability to get work done quicker and move on to other objectives. Yes, most aspects of life involve working hard to get ahead. But do not forget the easy way.
  • Emily Shandorf on 10 Dec 12
     
    Not everyone thinks alike and sometimes there are some misunderstandings. I think there should be different prospectives from multiple people, to then come out with a good, well thought decision. Mistakes happen but can be solved with more and different point of views from a range of people. The need to be open-minded and don't feel preoccupied of other people's judgment, is important.
madison taylor

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt - 9 views

www.edge.org/...haidt08_index.html

shared by madison taylor on 01 Oct 11 - Cached
  • The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 01 Oct 11
       
      It would be hard for democrats to abandon their commitment to social justice because that is their foundation. That is their experience because it is rooted philosophically in the concept of equality.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree. Because it is rooted in their philosophy, they could never be Democrats and not agree with social justice.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 03 Oct 11
       
      Haven't they given up their commitment to social justice? Historically they have attempted to be the protectors of civil liberties yet as long as Obama has president he has made no attempts to repel legislation like the patriot act which infringes on our privacy rights and with no opposition to this position from the right there is no one to protect them.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 04 Oct 11
       
      there is no one to protect who? Democrats? HE ACTUALLY said he would, but he did not He acually extended the Pariot Act because on May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions. Plus, there are far more important things going on right now for him to be worried abou repealing the patriot act!
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 04 Oct 11
       
      The foundation of the democrats is to strong and they would never be willing to change their philosophy and what the have stood for, for over hundreds of years.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 10 Oct 12
       
      Of course, this statement seems to true it goes without saying. The basis of being a Democrat is social justice and a lot of politics focuses around that. However, I do think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say they'd lose their souls. I don't think it's impossible for a Democrat to go left, though.
  • they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      This comment may be very biased, but i completely disagree. I consider myself a Democrat, so this article seems non-factual to me
  • The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      again, i disagree. i think both political parties have dealt with candidates like such, not just one or the other
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 02 Oct 11
       
      I disagree with this assertion. Because it is a guiding principle of humans in general to try to rationalize their arguments after making an emotional choice, both parties follow the first rule of moral psychology.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Lately this statement seems to be flipped around.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 03 Oct 11
       
      This assertion, along with the paragraph that preceded it, definitely rubbed me the wrong way. I feel that the only way to really measure morality is through the combination of both gut feelings and deciding what's logical, and then from there finding a happy medium upon which to base views. I feel that the author is placing much too heavy criticisms on Democrats, saying that they do not think about what they want in any way and only act upon their feelings, emotions and liberationist desires. There is an entire side to moral psychology in which conservatives utilize their feelings and desires as well, and I feel as though the author alludes to the claim of little to no emotional involvement in Republican policies.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 07 Oct 12
       
      It is very interesting how framing effects individuals of al backgrounds. I was surprised to read that even people who are educated and involved politically still get fooled by the framing effect. The fact that people stick to learning from news channels and online sources that share the same views shows that people's bias will grown and remain rather than lessen. If people learned from sources that had opposing views, they would learn new things rather than feeding themselves the biased information they already know and are used to hearing
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      What the heck is this guy talking about? FRD, Kennedy, and Obama are uninspiring and lacking/lacked a charismatic image? Jonathan is right when he says this statement should be flipped. Because Obama will always be more inspiring/charismatic over Romney..
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Oct 12
       
      Well what I think the author is trying to say is that overall the messages of the Democratic party are much harder to get across to people on an emotional level. Even if Obama is charismatic, which I agree he is, it is hard for him to explain to people that spending money helps stimulate an economy when his opponent can more effectively tell people that spending is bad and debt is bad. At the debate we saw this. Romney was not specific at all about policies but he used emotional words and phrases when he summarized what he would do. That connects better with people as we see with the poll shifts after the debate. 
  • ...23 more annotations...
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 02 Oct 11
       
      In general, i felt that this article was somewhat disorganized- i think it could've been more effective if it's arguements were better organized and more thoroughly referncing the arguement they are trying to make
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      I can see that, the topics definitely jumped around and it was a little hard to follow what they're overall goal was.
  • morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      "So long as he didn't serve the chicken to his friend after..." 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I would like to "Like" both posts. If its morally wrong, then isn't harmful to whomever finds it morally wrong?
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      I started reading this paragraph and thought he might ask the chicken question.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 03 Oct 11
       
      I have this conversation in various classes and every time the chicken question is posed or one similar to it, the most interesting question was that of a man and a turtle.
  • First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      Irrational actors 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      I agree. The amount of decisions based on feelings is both startling and understandable. We have all been in situations where we probably acted rashly.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      We don't use logic to come to a conclusion, we use logic to explaining our conclusion.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 10 Oct 12
       
      This is true. As humans, we use our emotions to play a huge part in our decision; how it makes us feel, how it would make other people feel, etc. Logic is out of the mindset when emotions overrides everything. Unless you make a decision strictly based on science, emotions will always have a role in deciding what is right and what is wrong.
  • feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 02 Oct 11
       
      What saddens me the most about this, is that as we have learned, no matter your study of policy and politics you are bound to be irrational and succumb to these same short comings. 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Exactly my problem with politics these days. Too many of our decisions are based on "what do I feel", or "I don't feel that is right". One of the first courses in law school that students have to take teaches that in order to properly understand politics, you have to remove emotions from the equation and that they play no part in politics whatsoever.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      But they do, and I think they should. Emotions shouldn't rule us but emotions are a part of life and society and so they have to be a part of laws and politics as well.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 10 Oct 12
       
      This explains reasoning used when people encounter sticky or uncomfortable situations and need a way to cope with them. They will first use emotional reasons to defend why something may be wrong, yet in the end they see that based purely on need, it is the only means available.
  • Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 03 Oct 11
       
      Using just these parameters, I could argue that Conservative positions could just as easily be trying to uphold the United States Constitution. I am not saying that I agree with everything said, just stating the holes in the argument.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 03 Oct 11
       
      This is just one of the statements he makes that doesn't make sense to me. He does not understand why I vote republican other than he thinks these 4 issues are important to me. He doesnt take into context everything, no one party is perfect and no one person has the views of one party. It is an imperfect system as will be, I vote republican because I believe in minimal government, more liberties and "smart" or no spending, and for nothing to impair the growth of the education system (limiting illegal immigration), those are my 4. I could be seen as a libertarian and am, but the democratic party does nothing for me, quite the opposite in fact
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 08 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the highlighted portion. We have to have some common ground when referring to polictics and morals. We are becomming so partison and split we have to unite on what we were founded on and what worked for so many years for our country.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 09 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Tyler. I feel that liberals are trying to bring us into the new times, but conservatives are pulling back so hard that there is a massive divide forming. We need to find common ground because this split is making it hard for us to bring our contry out of the hole it is trapped in.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the fact that a common ground needs to be achieved, but I must be realistic as I do not think that an agreement is hardly ever reached with minimal struggle between the two parties. I resent Haidt's glorification of conservatism on these issues. I do not think that Democrats nor Republicans have the fully appropriate approach to these issues. Ideally, both perspectives must be blended to create a 'morally rational' decision.  
  • a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good.
  • Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle.
  • Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.
    • alyssa Scheer
      alyssa Scheer on 03 Oct 11
       
      democrats, being more liberal than republicans, see the not so popular side of things. Republicans may offer a "Moral clarity" but thats because they are strict and play everything by the book. Democrats see more openly 
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 10 Oct 12
       
      What? " being more liberal than republicans, see the not so popular side of things". "Democrats see more openly". Ahhh
  • But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 03 Oct 11
       
      Is it just me or do they describe voting republican like it's some sort of terrible disease. I sense a little bit of bias here.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 03 Oct 11
       
      It's more than just a disease. It's described as being a genetic make-up. I think that is worse than being a disease because there isn't a cure for a genetic code.
  • I was a 29 year old liberal atheist who had spent his politically conscious life despising Republican presidents, and I was charged up by the culture wars that intensified in the 1990s.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 03 Oct 11
       
      Not surprised
  • Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 03 Oct 11
       
      this i found very ironic with the explicit divide drawn from church an state as a means of policy in itself and then how Durkneim's statement shows how even if it is said they are to be separate, the structure of society and the basis of any one faith have systematically been intertwined to meet a means of advancing any one collective's ideals. Its a presentation of faith and religion as a ends to a means of structure and justification to the way in which things are done in government and within the personal experience in defining which is the one right way to cultivate the beliefs of a majority and all things unrelated into a group. As its stated in this segment: a miracle.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      There have always been voters who vote for certain people or props based on their religious affiliation. I somewhat understand why people do this, but sometimes it's carried away. For example, one of my friends voting in this election is a devout catholic. She wasn't well versed in the issues and the candidates and so I encouraged her to research more before voting. She said she nearly agreed with EVERYTHING President Obama stood for, but she will still be voting for Romney JUST because of his stance on abortion. I totally get it if you believe in something, whether it's divine or just emotional but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.  
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      Being a christian I base my vote off what I believe and Morals, and I think thats totlly resonable. If there was a dem who could fix america Id vote for him. Back when Reagan ran both repubs an dems loved him. People went off who would do better for the country, despite what party they were from. Sad that its complete opposite these days. I am far right because of what I believe in, romney stands for those also and is a business man. But yes some people get carried away, overall I wish people were more educated on what there looking for in a president
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 10 Oct 12
       
      I agree, I'd say I'm a religious individual. Politically for me, it all depends on which candidate can fix the country. The two political parties become biased against one another. Democrats criticize the Republicans, and Republicans do the same. This is the sad fact of today's politics, it's hard to agree on something. Improving America is our priority and voters should consider that.
  • Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 07 Oct 12
       
      The beginning of this  text seems like a biased attempt to make sense of republicans. Haidt makes it seem like republicans are illogical and only carry o their republican ideas because of tradition. His article gets interesting when he talks about the experiments and how a majority of the people found harmless acts to be wrong. This shows that many people react without thinking, they react based on their emotions. 
  • In short, I was immersed in a sex-segregated, hierarchically stratified, devoutly religious society, and I was committed to understanding it on its own terms, not on mine.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 09 Oct 12
       
      This is good perspective to gain; if you go even deeper into this persons research, you would have to see how different cultures see political ideologies differently.
  • Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 09 Oct 12
       
      This is interesting that the students went against their emotions and feelings to say that it was not wrong because the actions did not hurt anyone. This is interesting because human beings are irrational in nature as they base their opinions with morals off their emotions and feelings with disgusts, so these experiments are very interesting to take note of.
  • My first few weeks in Bhubaneswar were theref
  • morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 09 Oct 12
       
      I rally like this definition of morality.  I think that is considers most peoples goal despite having different morals.  I say most because I cant try to say that i know every set of moral standards held by each individual on this planet.  But i think that this is a very non discriminating definition of what morals are really for and it takes away the maliciousness of some morals by giving them a goal of grater good. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 10 Oct 12
       
      i also like this definition of morality, i think it shows what morality means and in a way can describe a good reason as to why republicans vote the way they do and why they like the morality that republicans have to offer. 
  • "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 09 Oct 12
       
      This could be taken a long way by applying it to today.  You could say that the government in raising taxes for the one percent in order to prevent unhealthy and harmful lifestyles for those less privledged.  Just a thought.
  • If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 10 Oct 12
       
      This article was quite unsettling to me, but at least the author admits at this point that democrats need to see that the other side of the political aisle is not composed of senseless individuals. I wish more people in both political parties would realize this. Our us vs them mentality that we often have in politics can often harm our ability to see other's morals for what they are. 
  • Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Oct 12
       
      I get extremely annoyed when republicans claim to be the party of "faith and patriotism". Since when does being a liberal make you less patriotic than being a conservative? This is something that has become something of an epidemic for the GOP over the past few decades. I guarantee you that you cannot find ONE SINGLE speech spoken by a republican politician that does't reference God or freedom. 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Oct 12
       
      Welcome to the game of politics. If you have ever seen Fox News they believe that the Bible and Constitution are the two most patriotic items in America. And if a Democrat does not mention one or the other, or both, they get slammed for their unpatriotic ideals. I wish everything was based on rational policy making, but we do not live in that world. We live in the world where taking out "under God" in the pledge will make national headlines as an attack on religious freedom. Which is ridiculous if you think about it. Religious freedom would be "under ..." fill in whatever you believe.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think that this article was not  all encompassing.  Haidt decided to use psychology of Republicans on social issues to make a broader statement of why people vote Republican.  While this could be true for why Republicans vote a certain way on social issues, I don't think that he can make that full jump to conclude about the broader issue of conservative voters.  In addition, his examples and statements provided little evidence to prove that his conclusions were actually true.  Haidt can come up with a philosophy that sounds reasonable but that in itself is not enough evidence to prove a point.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 10 Oct 12
       
      I think only a few number of conservatives would actually fit into this idea of what he thiks a republican is.
  • anonymous on 03 Oct 11
     
    It says in this article that conservatism is a partially heritable personal trait, but I was told in highs school that people learn their political preferences mostly through what they were taught by their families (political socialization). This idea goes very well with the nature/nurture debate. I used to wonder about what made something sacred; was holy water holy just because someone blessed it? Mr Haidt's idea that "Sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns" makes a lot more sense. By the way, holy cheese comes from holy cows. Holy cows come from India!
  • ...5 more comments...
  • shane paulson on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree in which the most influence in people's political preferences come directly from their families. A person tends to sway to the side in which their parents take, because that's what they are taught from the beginning.
  • Kiera Murphy on 03 Oct 11
     
    Due to the lack of hard, truthful facts and the biased wording I don't believe that Conservatism is a heritable personal trait. If we step away from stereotypical ideologies that we have towards Republicans and Conservatives, we can see that most views stem from the environment they grow up in and how involved they are in the political realm of things. I also believe that beliefs stem from your young adult years and you grow into forming your own opinions. Once someone has fully come into their own they are able to form their own opinions that aline with being labeled as a Conservative, a Republican, a Liberal or a Democrat or a Moderate.
  • Eric Henderson on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree with you Kiera, there were very few hard and factual pieces of information, therefore, I could not make a ture judgement on this piece. Generally speaking, I do believe that one's political ideologies come from conditioning throughtout early teenage days through young adulthood. After that, they can form their own opinions then becoming apart of whatever party they wish
  • Lauren Petta on 03 Oct 11
     
    I do agree with Felicia. Social justices is the basis of the democratic party. It is what attracts many to it. If politicians were to abandon these ideals then it could be fatal to their party's future success.
  • cj_woldanski on 03 Oct 11
     
    I agree that this article was not a very well thought out piece. It was a little all over the place and in most areas for me, hard to grasp. But there are a lot of things in this article that I did not like. It seemed to me that this article is more of an attack on conservative beliefs. I am a Libertarian but I always vote Republican because I belief in many conservative ideas. I belief that more power should be constituted with the states and each state should get to run their state how they choose. I belief that taxes should always be low for everyone and that the government should not just spend our taxpayer money they way they seem is the most beneficial to us. I believe that the wars abroad are pointless and that the real war that we should be focusing on is our national defense on our border with Mexico. I believe in following the Constitution and not sidestepping and trying to change the Constitution that I have seen most Liberals in the government do. I don't care what someone's political stance is, just don't be a douche about something when you disagree with someone.
  • Emily Shandorf on 09 Oct 12
     
    It is fascinating to try to understand why people vote one way and other people vote another way. Republicans seem to offer simple solutions of "moral clarity" which are easy to understand and like. It is easy to like their positions-who wouldn't! The article talks about morality and the author discusses his research. He gives some very dramatic examples of situations (people eating their dog, using the American flag to clean their toilet) to provoke us into thinking about how we feel. These are all really good questions-and they do not have easy answers. He mentions that when people have "gut feelings" they do not use their heads to think about things clearly. This is true and I am like this, too! Morality also depends on culture. In some cultures it might be acceptable to eat dog! He talks about his trip to India and how he gradually came to like people who were very different from him. This is how he lost his "righteous passion" and how he, in my opinion, became more human. This is the most important point of the article to me: you can respect someone else's opinion even if you do not agree. The author calls the Republican party a "sacred" one and the Democratic a "profane" one. I think this is a good way of putting it because Republicans talk about big issues like God and religion and the Democrats talk about society and its problems. I also reflected on the national motto of the American flag: "e pluribus unum (from many, one) and think that both parties should promote this.
  • gina Hogrefe on 10 Oct 12
     
    Freedom of speech and the freedom to practice your beliefs is what seperates the USA from France. However you cannot impose religion it is the bases of why church and state must remain seperate. If the church slips into the state that is over riding our constitutional rights.
Kim H

Does the Invisible Hand Need a Helping Hand? - Reason.com - 8 views

reason.com/...does-the-invisible-hand-need-a

shared by Kim H on 16 Sep 11 - Cached
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 16 Sep 11
       
      is this saying that the players would completely forget about the ethical thing to do which is maximize loong term gain and go for short term interests if the "game" has an issue like a player being fined? if there is a consequence do people try to cheat their way out by just getting short term gain and be done with it? do they think they are benefitting??
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I was thinking that maybe the fact that there is a government regulation, they don't feel that they are responsible for taking care of the natural resources? Kind of like the "government" is the babysitter? And the people don't feel that they should be help accountable. 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I mean to say that "people don't feel that they should be held accountable" not "help" sorry
    • Mangala Kanayson
      Mangala Kanayson on 16 Sep 11
       
      Maybe they think their human dignity and self worth are degraded by micromanagement/government intervention.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 16 Sep 11
       
      "By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." I think this quote, and this article as a whole, refers back to the common saying that "subordination leads to revolution." If a person wants to do something, as in donate time or money to a cause, they will do so because they feel the need to pursue their own interest through helping society, which is a win-win. But if "costs" are presented to people in the form of taxes and they're forced to pay for things they don't necessarily want to contribute to, they will want to go against the goodness of the cause, if merely for the sake of not allowing someone to force them into something.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      Exactly. It's just human nature. We don't like to be told what to do, and despite what the money's going towards, since it was obligatory, it doesn't have the same effect as if it was given freely. There could be some satisfaction in paying the taxes, because there's a sense of "it's over with", but I don't think much else. Self interest governs a lot of how this society works, anyways, and making some things obligatory (like picking up kids from a daycare) tends to take away ethic value and increases a more economic perspective ("What is the opportunity cost for leaving my child too long? Is it worth it?")
  • In one game, a player split a day's pay with another player. If the second player didn't like the amount that the first player offered, he could reject it and both would get nothing. The findings would warm the hearts of market proponents. As Bowles notes, "[I]ndividuals from the more market-oriented societies were also more fair-minded in that they made more generous offers to their experimental partners and more often chose to receive nothing rather than accept an unfair offer.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 16 Sep 11
       
      did the players know that it was just a game? if they knew it was a game in the first place, obviously they wouldn't have minded giving their money away. if they actually thought it was real, that would be some interesting information. i wish they would've included this detail somewhere
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 16 Sep 11
       
      The players that were earning more money will always be more generous than the players that were earning less money. If the players knew it was a game they would have given their money away. But in some cases people that earn more money are less likely to give it away because usually the people that make more money are more frugal and send their money wisely
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think it would have been better, like Gaby said, to see weather these people knew they were playing a game or not. I feel that the results would have been very different if they felt that it was for real, compared to if they knew it was a game. People are completely fine with losing money when it is just game; however, people feel that it is for real, they would "play", no pun intended, it smarter. 
  • Instead, parents reacted to the fine by coming even later.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 16 Sep 11
       
      The parents who picked up their kids late before the fine was imposed would come later after the fine because they would pay the same amount for being 5 minutes late as for being 20 minutes late. If people are going to be punished equally for actions of different degrees, they will often not care about a greater offense because the punishment will be the same.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      Just another example of innate human values and free market principles not coinciding.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 16 Sep 11
       
      While this is on a much smaller scale in the bigger picture, this same principle happens all the time whether when dealing with picking up your kids or republicans and democrats fighting in Washington. The free market does not always coincide with a personal morals, values, and ethics, however, that doesn't mean that it has to be either or.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 16 Sep 11
       
      The obvious reason that the parents came later than normal after the imposed fine is basically that the parents are rebelling against authority. The parents are sending a message that they do not care about the penalties, instead, they are saying that the people in authority in this situation have no power to tell them what to do.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      I believe that the parents were just weighing their pros and cons... pay extra money for the daycare or have more free time before getting their kids. They chose that the extra money for some more time was worth it, so it made it kind of better for the fine to be placed for the parents because it could relieve guilt of being late with paying the daycare extra money.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      ok i already posted a comment but i dont see it on here anywho if the parents are paying for daycare and have good reasons for being late then they shouldnt be fined for working or whatever the case may be traffic etc there indeed paying for day care the teachers should atleast give a time limit after the initial let out time of the kids
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think the parents saw the payment as an opportunity for extended care rather than a punishment for being late. So i gave them a chance to pay for babysitting pretty much making it more ethical to leave their kids past due. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 18 Sep 12
       
      I agree, yet when the parents signed up and paid for daycare they only paid for a certain time. I highly doubt the teachers are given overtime and after everything the teachers are doing for the child, the decent thing would be to pick your child up on time or call to inform them you will be late. Knowing that you will be fined a set price for being late and then using that to your advantage by knowing their is no set limit, is abusing the teachers. That's what I believe.   
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with what Eric said ^^^^^ up above, the parents appear to be, metaphorically, laughing in the face of the teachers and declaring that the teachers don't have authority over them. It's just like with politics, they need to find a middle ground where the parents and teachers are happy (eg. maybe charging slightly more, but getting rebates for picking up on time, so parents feel like they have the ability to GAIN something as opposed to the ability to LOSE something)
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      My mom would pick me up late whether there was a fine or not.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with the people who understand this to be a prime example of how people react when they are micro manged. I understand that many people are different but looking at my life experiences I have been most successful when I had a boss that did not micromanage, when I was accountable to my self to pick up my son on time or be on time to a doctor appointment and finally when I had complete control over my own fiances. I look at the fine for being late as a way out of self accountability because it normalizes it by saying most of you can not be responsible so we will create something that allows you feel okay about. This is true in many other cases as well.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • In one game, a player split a day's pay with another player. If the second player didn't like the amount that the first player
  • We're showing that paying taxes does produce a neural reward.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 16 Sep 11
       
      I would not have guessed this actually. People complain about taxes so much, but deep down they obviously know that paying taxes is beneficial to others as well as themselves.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is true, unless there are too much taxes. And the taxed product, or in other words, where the money goes for the tax is another issue.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      I disagree with the phrase "too much taxes". It should be noted that taxation in a blank slate economy can never be considered 'too much'. The appropriate amount of taxation depends on the cost of living, income levels, mean wealth, and a variety of other variables.  In the United States it could be said that 'too much taxation' could occur easily, but the greater issue at hand that I think Sarah raises is whether those taxes are being put to good use for the public good. The issue is one of public common interest vs private self interest.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 19 Sep 12
       
      In my opinion, the neural 'reward' for paying taxes is not necessarily just about taxes. Since the people knew that the tax was directly for a food bank and not something that doesn't help a sensitive topic; they felt like they were doing some good for a charitable cause even though it was required. And that sparked the 'neural reward' for them.
  • "policies that appeal to economic self-interest do not affect the salience of ethical, altruistic, and other social preferences." Consequently, material interests and ethics generally pull in the same direction, reinforcing one another.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      I feel like these two points are contradictory.
  • The players looked at the fine as a cost and pursued their short-term interests at the expense of maximizing long-term gains. In this case, players apparently believed that they had satisfied their moral obligations by paying the fine.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is one of the perfect examples of why the federal government charging people for not purchasing health insurance is a ridiculous idea.
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 19 Sep 12
       
      How can you possibly justify satisfying a 'moral' obligation by stealing more of a collective resource in the short term and still having it be an issue in a few months or year. Self-regulation is an important tool for people to have, but potentially throwing the whole community under the bus for a short large gain may not be worth it...
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 19 Sep 12
       
      I definitely agree.  It doesn't really satisfy the moral obligation.  It will be a reoccurring theme for a while and many short term gains will not equate to long term ones.
  • The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      It seems to be a bit of an overreaching argument to suggest that a fine would re-prioritize the ethical behaviors of the parents. I could understand parents viewing the situation in a matter of quantity, that is that being five minutes late is no different than an hour monetarily, but I think that this reasoning does not provide for whether they had a loss of moral integrity or guilt regarding their child being left at the day care late.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 17 Sep 11
       
      I do not agree with Bowles' statement that picking up one's children is not an ethical obligation. The way those parents saw the fine, was as a fee for an extra time. If the parents were more late than usual, I think the fine should have been more specific. By having such a vague fine, picking children up late you get fined, is not very informational. The fine should have been defined properly for instance, if you are 10 minutes late you are fined so much money and so on. Just moving the fine progressively according to the lateness of the parent might have produced different results.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      I find this reaction to the fine interesting in that it plays directly to the idea that "time is money". Convenience comes at a certain economic value whether its your car, your cell phone, computer, plane ticket, paying someone to mow your lawn or anything of that sort that saves you the hassle of completing a certain task. All the things I have listed are tasks/items that could be done in cheaper/less efficient ways, but we buy the right to the convenience. The issue in the parents minds seems to be not along the line of morality in the sense of respecting OTHERS and their time, but the ethical standard of " I am buying this time, and I will pick up my child late because I 'bought' that right". Once money was introduced to the equation, the parents feel more inclined to not mind the  teachers time but rather their own. 
  • After eight rounds of play, the Colombians withdrew an amount that was halfway between individually self-interested and group-beneficial levels. Then
  • In other words, as people gain more experience with markets, morals and material incentives pull together.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      In markets, human beings will look out for their own self interest, because that is a part of human nature, so I do not know about gaining morals in the market because humans will find the best deal for them that they can get. All they have to do is get the other person to agree with them, it does not always have to be fair especially if one side needs something desperately.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      but yes the market could help people to learn how to work with others so that we could all benefit
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      Although 'market players' are often viewed as purely looking out for themselves in competition, human beings do, by nature, feel inclined to give back to society. so oftentimes when they realize that they will do well material-ly in a market, the morals begin to move in. or so the author appears to be saying.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 19 Sep 12
       
      Humans tie in morals and material incentives together, especially in a market. Some may argue that compassion and lending a helping hand is a variation for self gain and worth.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      The characteristics necessities for a market to be successful brings those in the industry to acknowledge the importance of respecting the value of a fair-minded exchange. There is competition within the market to be on top but you must rely on others to help excel your profits. The fair-mindedness aspect links to the "moral" aspect seemingly as one BECAUSE of the other. The correlation between the two can be coincidence because of what the author has defined as "moral". Moral could be the idea of being fair, but morality delves deeper into than that. Morality relies on intention or motivation. In this article, the moral issue is the idea of making a fair exchange. He defines fair as making a mutually beneficial exchange with each other. Does each side have the say as to what would benefit the other? Or is this just a ploy to gain trust from the other individual in the fair exchange? This article could be giving too much credit for marketeers in saying that the benefits of being "fairminded" comes from a moral stand point. It is perfectly plausible to say that they are making fair exchanges based on their reputation as a business or/and to pull ahead and be better than the other companies. This, in my mind, would be just playing a smart game and a smart game doesn't have to be aligned with morality.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 18 Sep 12
       
      There is a pattern that humans get better joy out of doing things that get them socially accepted buy others.
  • The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      offcourse the parents are gonna come later who wants to get fined for being late to pick up your kid from school especially if the parent was working i mean if the parent was having fun and constantly did it then maybe i wuld agree but i dont think thats the case with the majority of the kids someone needs to pay for the daycare so i dont think parents were late at first for b.s reasons
  • "By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      Self interest creates competition which makes the market more efficient
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 19 Sep 12
       
      This idea would be the basis of why we should not increase taxes even more on the upper class because the more of their money they get to keep and spend how they want the more they will spend and boost the economy.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think this entire article has some valid points towards the laissez-faire economic philosophy.
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree. . The market needs to fail at times to improve business with new competion
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Karina, even if we took all the money from the richest people, we would not be able to take care of the deficit spending problem we have in the United States.  Most of the taxes come from the huge middle class, which are also some of the biggest consumers in a society.  If you allow taxes to be low, then people will not be afraid of losing all of their money at some point and will feel more comfortable putting it back into the economy through commerce and donations.  When people are afraid of the massive amounts of taxes they are going to have to pay, they are going to keep their money in their pockets and not spend it.
  • But we're showing that the neural reward is even higher when you have voluntary giving."
  • He was forever looking over your shoulder, constantly kibitzing and threatening you. In return, you worked as little as you could get away with. On the other hand, perhaps you've had bosses who inspired you—pulling all-nighters in order to finish up a project so that you wouldn't disappoint her.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it is ridiculous for people to base their work habits on how their bosses treat them. They should do a good job for the sake of their own morals and work ethics.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it's going a bit far to define this choice as ridiculous. It's natural for an individual's output to be gauged on their input and the time and effort that goes into the work that they do. Although good work ethic is an individual choice, it would be haphazard to discount outside factors such as necessary employment and financial stability. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think this example is more on not liking the boss than personal work effort. Doing just enough work for the boss to just leave you alone comparing to a boss that is not so controlling and that you are willing to work for.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 19 Sep 12
       
      Regardless of how the employer or manager treats an employee, they should be doing every aspect required of them, the one thing that I cannot stand though is working your hardest and trying extremely hard to impress and then you get absolutely no recognition for your deeds
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 19 Sep 12
       
      I found this article interesting because it displays to readers that money is not the main internal drive when working. I believe that self fulfillment is the main factor. This goes against the invisble hand and the preceived notation that competition within the work force is drived by money.
  • In return, you worked as little as you could get away with.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 19 Sep 12
       
      The concept of just getting over the threshold, doing the absolute minimum to satisfy the needs of your job and not bothering to go above and beyond.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think that when people give voluntarily, it gives them a sense of satisfaction from their conscience. Gaining experience with markets, however, can help tie moral and material incentives so that better decisions are made.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it is funny how the fine that was intended to make the parents pick their children up on time backfired and led the parents to pick up their children even later than they normally would have otherwise.  They figured that they would pay the same for an extra five minutes by being late as being 10-15 minutes late. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 19 Sep 12
       
      I feel like it is almost ironic that the parents don't pick up there kids on time and come even later. They think that if they pay the fine than it compensates them being late. The fine helps them to free their moral obligation to which they don't feel bad 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 19 Sep 12
       
      "lateness is a commodity they could purchase".    This makes sense to me. If I am going to pay the same fine for being one minute late as I would if I were an hour late, why wouldn't I take my sweet time getting there if it's costing me the same either way. 
  • Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
     
    Taxes are a necessity for an economy. However, where do we draw the line of.. how much taxes? where does our money go? who gets taxed more? and why do they get taxed more? etc... These are all issues that are going to sway peoples "neural reward."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Andrew Rothans on 21 Sep 11
     
    I believe taxes are needed for our economy to stay above water. Like Eric said where do we draw the line? And where does the money truly go? I don't feel that all the money we pay in taxes really helps us in the future. It may help the economy and our country but I feel that it does not help me in any direct way.
  • gina Hogrefe on 18 Sep 12
     
    The article of games and players that are seeking rewards; sounds like monopoly to me.What I liked best about the reading is that even voluntary giving has its "neural rewards." Maybe if the general public knew they would get a gift from giving than they would give more.
  • Carissa Faulk on 19 Sep 12
     
    I find it fascinating that, in the case of the day care, the mere act of putting a fine in place seems to remove the moral obligation to be on time. This is certainly not a logical response to such a fine, but as I think about my own life I understand the almost subconscious difference that it incites in one's way of thinking. If you pay a fine for an immoral or unfair act (such as, for instance, a late fee on a library book) it seems to remove the feelings of guilt about inconveniencing others and makes you instead feel as though you had purchased some extra days with the book. It would make sense that this would hold true for taxes. If we pay our taxes and the government gives to the poor, we feel like our moral obligation to the poor has been fulfilled. We think we did our part, when in actuality we have done very, very little.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 19 Sep 12
     
    No the invisible hand does not need a helping hand. The free market is specifically created so that the market works itself out of tough econmic times. Any tampering with the free market could make things way worse than they already are. It might take some time for the market to improve, but it will if we can just leave it alone.
Kayla Sawoski

Can we bridge the worlds of theory and policy? | Stephen M. Walt - 1 views

walt.foreignpolicy.com/...the_cult_of_irrelevance

shared by Kayla Sawoski on 16 Oct 12 - Cached
  • And let's not forget that tenure isn't granted to allow a life-time of self-indulgent scholarship, but to allow scholars to take risks in their research and to confront controversial subjects without fear of coercion
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 16 Oct 12
       
      This is an important fact as some would worry that teachers could get more laid back and not as helpful with job security, but it is nice to know that those who really love teaching still force the fact and that they are allowed to have security while helping with real world issues. I believe that the academic side really needs to force the fact that political science is important as it can help society.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 17 Oct 12
       
      Yes, too many people take tenure as a time to relax and take vacation, when they should really use it as an expiramental time to offer a side or solution to controversies without the fear of being unsupported. It would be difficult for anyone to not take advantage of their tenure.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 17 Oct 12
       
      Many academic leaders take tenure as a time to adventure and relax because they now feel safe that no one will take their job away. In my opinion this time should be used to further use their experience in education to deeper their knowledge in their specific subject since technically no one can take their job away for no apparent reason
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 17 Oct 12
       
      well i didnt know the deffinition of a tenure till now and honestly i do belive some teachers use that to in a way change either there classrooms or even the way they teach they may relax if not just give grades since they know the system so well. but this isnt a bad thing for teachers they know the cant lose there job so why worry i feel they take this time as a way to teach in away that the school will approve but without actually being told what to teach and how to teach.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 16 Oct 12
       
      I think that Mr. Walt has it sort of right, at some point the research that is done in Academia becomes self indulgent of the scientist, they are just feeding their own curiosity rather than actually finding answers to questions held my many people and instead just a few who live their lives in the same area of academics and therefore have the same interests.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree, but what does it honestly mean anyways.  The percentages for finding something statistically significant in the social sciences are 5% or below.  Political Science is so difficult to understand that they give them that much leverage to be right or wrong. In addition, the variables that they evaluate could have little or nothing to do with the point they are trying to make and in the end no one even really cares.
  • For political scientists, that ought to mean using our knowledge to address important matters of concern in the real world, and to contribute to the broader public discourse on these topics
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 17 Oct 12
       
      Theres so many hot topics right now. Being a poli sci major I totally feel its my duty to know real world topics and address serious matters. Same thing to teachers like the article said, that's a responsibility we hold. Face issues many dont want to talk about
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 17 Oct 12
       
      I feel like people should make 'important matters of concern in the real world' known to them. It should be all people alike's responsibility (not only political science majors) to educate themselves on these matters so they could have a say and to think for themselves. These matters affect our own lives, educated or not. Therefore, it makes sense to at least be educated on some important matters that pertains to our interests or what we think would affect us most.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Shannon. Although it is definitely the responsibility of those of us who study politics to be current and educated on all big issues, it is also the responsibility of the general public. I find it so sad that high school students (at least in Oregon) are only required one government and economic class while many other subjects were required every year. It shows where society places priority when in reality every single one of us is affected politics everyday in our lives. I remember when I first started studying political science at UO one of my professors showed a video they had made asking college students around campus who the vice president was or if the could name a single measure on the ballet or who the governor or senators were in Oregon and the majority of them could not answer a single question. Drawing it back to the reading I think it is because we have not done the greatest job of bridging the gap between theory and what is happening so people get so disconnected. It is up to us who study political science to understand the theories but make it interesting and applicable to real world issues.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 17 Oct 12
       
      Political Scientists should address more important matters to inform society. Society needs to be more informed about political matters and things going on in our country. If society is not informed, our country can not function correctly. 
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Even worse, anyone who does engage the real world gets derided for doing "policy analysis" and younger scholars who show an interest in this sort of activity are less likely to be taken seriously and less like to rise within the profession. What sort of incentive structure is that?  
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 17 Oct 12
       
      Taking this statement hand in hand with how "our fellow citizens have a right to expect us to...use our knowledge to address serious issues", it makes me wonder if this is a sort of cycle. For sure, it seems like it's all influenced by society and norms, but I have to wonder if why it is so "silly" for scholars to get involved with policy analysis when they are basically doing their job?
  • a self-fulfilling world-view
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 17 Oct 12
       
      I don't get how it is self-fulfilling though... 
  • gina Hogrefe on 16 Oct 12
     
    Great article post! The tenure system is a solution to old problems. It is a system that rewards research over good teaching. Like the article suggests that most of the tenure research is irrelevant to real world problems. The tenure system needs to be abolished for a number of reasons.
Erick Sandoval

http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twocon... - 10 views

www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/...erlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf

shared by Erick Sandoval on 26 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 26 Sep 11
       
      Freedom at times is seen as either your are free or you are bound by something or someone, yet this article ( alongside the video) shows us that this "term" is broad. Depicting the idea of freedom, we can see that it is far more complex than we tend to assume. 
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 26 Sep 11
       
      The meaning of freedom has been changed or altered and is now what ever beliefs that have been put into our minds by those before us. Which is exactly what has been shown, we will believe that we are free if we are told it because that is what we know it as. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 28 Sep 12
       
      Freedom is a pretty broad term, I agree. There are a lot of abstract concepts to it that make it difficult to box neatly like we usually do.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 28 Sep 12
       
      The definition of freedom differs from person to person. A person's definition of liberty is most likely affected by what he/she has experienced, and or how he/she was raised. One's explanation of what it means to be free can be totally and completely different from some one else.
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 07 Sep 12
       
      I really think this guy is crazy!!!!
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree, this guy is crazy.
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 27 Sep 12
       
      Doesn't stone define negative freedom the way this passage describes positive freedom? Or is this just a different perspective?
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 28 Sep 12
       
      I like that he references De Tocqueville because I love his theories on freedom especially in American society and also because he realizes that there are limitations to freedom but they are ultimately very similar to the freedoms that others desire.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 28 Sep 12
       
      I agree with the first couple of sentences in the second paragraph on the first page. Not only in the Middle East but also here in the US ideas that may not be rational are considered rational by one side or the other. It is hard to find middle ground on issues because if you are on the left you tend to think all or most ideas are the right ones and the same goes for people on the right. Even if both sides have rational arguments 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 28 Sep 12
       
      on certain issues the bias people have affects their decisions and until we can as a society tone down that bias it will be a long time before we can all agree on rational ideas.
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 28 Sep 12
       
      liberty is only liberty. Liberty can lead to other thins like equality or human happiness, but that's not its definition. Just because there is no fairness or justice does not mean there is no liberty.
  • Tavish Dunn on 26 Sep 11
     
    Because people have an effect on each other at all times, it is difficult to imagine a situation where we are free from the influence of everyone around us. Although we tend to think of freedom as how it relates to individuals, it is much more complex as freedom is impacted by the interactions between individuals.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Eric Arbuckle on 26 Sep 11
     
    Within a society complete freedom is an almost impossible reality. Peoples views of liberty are distorted by their culture and upbringing. However, America provides the type of liberty that allows individuals to seek and set goals to the top. In America you can make it to the top of the top, the highest of classes in the world, or you can fall to the bottom and be among the many impoverished people. In a society where the government is limited, the people have the ability to come out on top and never have a limit to their goals. When the government steps in and starts taking away certain freedoms in order to "spread the wealth" it takes away from the ability of individuals to not only full fill their goals, but limits how high their goals can be.
  • anonymous on 27 Sep 11
     
    Mill's view on liberty sounds kind of like that of Ayn Rand; it is objective: Individual liberty is sacred because civilization cannot advance without it. Those who are not productive with their liberty will be punished because they are not as likely to make a lot of money as those who are productive. But those who are rich due to their production and/or creation of jobs often deserve to be rich rather than have the fruits of their labor crushed by the weight of collective mediocrity. People cannot be completely free, unbound by absolutely no one and nothing. In fact, some of these binds are essential to well-being according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In the end, we cannot be entirely free because we need others to live happily (wow, that even rhymed).
  • Lauren Frenkel on 28 Sep 11
     
    Complete freedom does seem merely impossible for a society to attain. This may be because the definition of freedom is different for every individual. What does to be free even mean? In order for every individual to agree on the definition of freedom then everyone must also agree on their set of values. However, this can never be a reality because everyone holds certain aspects at different levels of importance. For many the "individual" is highly valued, however this does not mean everyone feels the same. People are influenced every day by others or by their values therefore to be free is an unlikely end.
  • Kiera Murphy on 28 Sep 11
     
    I definitely agree with Lauren. A universal idea of freedom is extremely hard to attain because each and every person in bound to have a different idea of freedom. I also agree with Sharena. A society that has no limits or boundaries would be chaos. Going back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs in crucial in order to keep control. To provide the basic stepping stones for citizens that provides the necessities to survive and the security of a safe nation, or a safety net, would make it easier for an individual to achieve all their needs. This all begins with an idea of people taking advantage of the individual they are given.
  • Emily Shandorf on 08 Sep 12
     
    Freedom is the power to determine who you really are as a person. It's a way of living. Not everyone can be free if you don't give yourself a chance to be it. People can tell you as well, like Amanda said: "we will believe that we are free if we are told. " but I think having the initiative is more important instead of waiting until a person tells you. Also Tavish said: "people have an effect on each other at all times, it is difficult to imagine a situation where we are free from the influence of everyone around us." and I completely agree with him. I mean how will the world be when people start actually being independent and therefore free and not influenced by one another? Freedom is a big word and power to have, but I think no one knows how to control it without exaggerating.
  • Erick Sandoval on 01 Oct 12
     
    "What am I free to do or be?" Everybody has limited freedom. You are able to do anything you want but for certain actions you take there can be consequences. So technically you are not free because a bigger power is punishing you for your actions.
Caitlin Fransen

Joanna Moorhead on the best country to give birth | Life and style | The Guardian - 18 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...healthandwellbeing.health

shared by Caitlin Fransen on 10 Sep 11 - No Cached
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      obviously these statistics of new mothers dying is high because of a lack of medical insight and medicine as well as resources but if perhaps they do live through a childbirth are they aware of the now even higher chances of death during a 2nd or 3rd child birth?or is it just now a expected custom?
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 11 Sep 11
       
      i had the same questions in my mind while reading this, but i think if they have the proper medication and necessities to advance the process and outcomes of the childbirth in the first place, the survival rate of the 2nd and 3rd children will possibly increase as well.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 12 Sep 11
       
      it is sad to see that women in this country are not able to receive proper medical attention for their babies. Its not just the medical attention that is lacking, it is the transportation where is the transportation for these mothers? As a society we need to do something for these third world countries to receive the proper medical attention, changes need to be made and we all have to participate.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 12 Sep 11
       
      These are the stories that make me want to pursue a career in Public Health. It is absolutely ridiculous that mothers in Niger and all over impoverished Africa are forced to go through such a delicate procedure virtually on their own with only slightly trained caretakers, if they're lucky. Birth is the beginning of life, and no one's life should begin this way. Mothers' greatest joys should be the birth of their children, yet they clearly are unable to enjoy this process (or gain any positive feelings from it whatsoever) in any way due to poor conditions. The issue of economic inequality throughout the world is presented in a huge way by this article. If Swedish mothers-to-be can be given such fantastic care, mothers in Africa (and mothers everywhere, for that matter) should be able to receive just as much care. However, the overall key is education. All successful pursuits within governments begin with educated and well-trained personnel who can perform any and all necessary tasks pertaining to a position.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 12 Sep 11
       
      This article is quite ridiculous when you compare both countries as it should not be done. There are two many different situations that yes, it does show the differences between the two socieites and many of the problems but what can be done to change this? The infrastructure need sto updated and worked on but that is more complicated (and expensive) then anyone can understand for a 3rd world country. The United States often times takes situations like these into hand and tries to help the world solve its problems but you cant keep giving handouts, especially when we are already struggling to support our own country. Yes I think every child deserves to live and be born in a safe environment where they should be given the chance to succeed but we can not save everyone, we must be realistic, no matter how bad this sounds, it is the truth.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 13 Sep 11
       
      Along with what Marina said, the women in Niger do not get to enjoy the birth of their child. Instead they have to endure this immense pain, which may last for plenty of hours, and do so quietly. The process of childbirth is not pleasant, but it is a joyous moment for the mother. Nevertheless, they have to endure and then walk back to their home without getting any check-up after the labor. This problem is just leading to more problems for the mothers and newborns since the mothers endure about nine months and their newborn might die instantly. I think that the country should get not necessarily professionals, but sanitary facilities to move a step forward and cut down the statistic a bit more.
  • She was was born by caesarean section because of worries over a uterine scar, the result of previous surgery. It might have been fine, the doctors told her, but there was a risk it might rupture. "Why take that risk?" says Carmen, smiling
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      i think this further emphasizes the difference in the care that each location chooses to dedicate to childbirth- one place doesn't care or seem to want to even try and deal with the risks of childbirth, whereas the other place is all about prevention and care
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 14 Sep 12
       
      I AGREE WITH GABY
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      was this a nessessity or are the people being spoiled with this type of care. i understand care in a hospital is important but this may be overdoing it a bit.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      How is this overdoing it? It's best, if you can, to take all precautions. It's easier to take a precaution then to fix a problem after the fact. If there had been a complication she could have died or her baby could have died.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 12 Sep 11
       
      I think this may be overdoing it just a little bit, just because of my personal morals, but in their particular society, it is perfectly normal to avoid any risks whatsoever by way of a caesarean section. I personally was born this way, but this is only true because it was a danger to my health. This is the only instance in which I believe it is 100 percent acceptable to have a caesarean section performed.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I don't think that they are being spoiled. I think its odd to do a caesarean because of cosmetic worries. Since, I assume that is her reason for not wanting the uterine scar. But I definitely don't think its overdoing it. Personally, if I had the resources for everything to go the way I wanted, why not take advantage of it.
    • Lauren Frenkel
      Lauren Frenkel on 12 Sep 11
       
      Agreed. Why not take advantage of the available resources? When comparing the different types of care available it may seem a bit over the top how ever it is keeping women safe and comfortable. Although comfort is not a necessity, it is a luxury that other countries unfortunately do not have access to. Perhaps if more luxuries were provided then less deaths would occur for both women and infants.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 14 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Sarah, Jonathan, and Lauren. I think it's important to take advantage of all resources at all times, even more so if you can afford it. I don't think there is any way to "over-do" anything when it comes to health. With technology these days, it's best to keep moving forward and continue to find new ways for problems and situations that will happen for many years to come. Otherwise, all the money and time spent into doing health research will be put to waste. It's better to be safe than sorry.
  • ...52 more annotations...
  • he fertility rate, at 7.5, is among the highest in the world.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      thats because they dont have access to birth control of any kind including condoms and oral contraceptives.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      And currently it is the highest at 7.6.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I agree with Magen. The complete lack of knowledge in this area of the world is ridiculous. Many of the women would rather take risks than use contraceptives because of its too hard to get them or too expensive. Is it not easier to just say no? I can't imagine there are tv shows or billboards promoting sex in these parts of the world.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 14 Sep 12
       
      I really don't think that the women have much of an option. They don't have the extra money to spend on contraceptives considering they probably can hardly feed their families. Also the women probably don't have the option to say no. Niger is culturally much different than where we live, probably using a more patriarchal system. The men dominate home life, saying no isn't practical. On top of all that if they don't have the money for decent healthcare, they also probably don't have the means to have television or billboards, especially in the villages that the article talks about.
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 10 Sep 11
       
      of course children are not going to live very long if they are not properley cared for and checked for diseases after they are born. They miss a treatment window and are unfortunatly killed by the diseases that could have been cured or even prevented.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      furthermore, is this lack of aftercare due to the poverty in Niger, or the lack of importance that these people give to childbirth? or possibly both?
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      I can't imagine that it is do to a lack of importance of childbirth. Children are important in all societies or at least virtually all, I hate to say all. But it is programmed into our DNA, we take care of children, they are important for our survival and the survival of our species. I mean, maybe they have a slightly less important in Niger because Niger has the highest total birth rate in the world but I can not fathom a society that does not think of children as being important.
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 12 Sep 11
       
      I couldn't imagine that somehow only in Niger people didn't put an importance on child birth. I am led to believe that the lack of aftercare in Niger is indeed due to the amount of severe poverty. There aren't many doctors or nurses there trained in modern medicine, and those rare cases that a Nigerian citizen gets a scholarship to medical school, how likely do you think it is they'd want to return? I am not saying they hate their country or that none return, but to them it is a way out of poverty and to a better life
  • There is no aftercare, Insa explains: no midwife will check up on mother or baby, so Dahara will have to use her own judgment if there are any post-natal problems and seek help if and where she can
  • Niger is officially the most dangerous place on earth to have a baby: in May, a Save the Children report found that, of the 125 nations it surveyed, Niger was where childbirth was most likely to end badly. Statistically, Dahara, who is 26, has a one-in-seven chance of dying during her reproductive years as a result of a pregnancy-related complication or infection, or childbirth injury. Her baby son, lying here on the table, has a 15% chance of not reaching his first birthday and a one-in-six chance of not making it to the age of five. And Dahara is fortunate to have had the skills of a midwife like the cheerful Insa: across the country, only 16% of deliveries are attended by anyone with any training at all.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      These statistics are obviously very concerning and eye-opening when it comes to comparing between childbirth here in the US and childbirth in places like NIger. However, I also wonder why these woman choose to go through so many risks in childbirth by having so many children. I understand that perhaps these woman and their families desire children on their behave, but why choose to have so many if the risks only dramatically increase? Is this for reasons of culture or mere wants on behalf of the family (ies)?
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 12 Sep 11
       
      I believe at least a part of the issue for countries like these are that they have serious lack of birth control. Many of these people are very uneducated and lack advice in these areas that our culture often takes for granted. Having a large family can also be a plus in their enviornment. More people, more workers and their children can help with work. Or if the parents become sick, they will have someone to look after them.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 14 Sep 12
       
      This show global inequality based on the statistics of survival of mom and baby. Niger clearly doesn't have the technology to make childbirth more efficient. In comparison to Sweden's hospital care, Dahara is left be the doctor to herself and her child, thus risking the life of her baby and of herself. The care in Niger seems cruel and unsafe , where as Sweden has midwives there for every step of the way. Everywhere in the world no matter what the country should have proper equipment and care for childbirth.
  • Until then, she, her partner Tommy Svedberg, 41 - who was at the birth and is now taking paternity leave to be involved in his daughter's first weeks - and Tess are staying at the hospital, in a large, hotel-like double room.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 10 Sep 11
       
      ...contrary to the other family, where the father won't even be involved at all in the early weeks of their baby's life
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I had no idea there was something called paternity leave. I thought that this was pretty cool. I think its pretty important that the father is there to help the mother deal with the newborn. This also might help prevent psychological problems with the mother.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 13 Sep 12
       
      I agree. I had no idea either but I think it's great that the father supports the mother. Child birth is a miracle but it can also come with extreme side effects and the support of a husband can be very helpful in these situations! 
  • Education, she says, is key. "If we could raise awareness of some of the health issues, we could save many lives,"
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 11 Sep 11
       
      While more advanced medical equipment would help deal with many issues new mothers face in delivery, help from people with actual training to help with deliveries would prevent several of the complications faced by new mothers giving birth.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that the Save the Children people are doing a great job in doing the small part that they have in educating the women of Niger about even something so small as breast feeding.  I don't think that they have unattainable goals and if education is where the change needs to start then building up from there would do a world of difference for those women.
  • massage, a shower, acupuncture
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      During labor?
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      Did not think that acupuncture was something performed in hospitals.
  • Because, it transpires, when you come into hospital to have a baby in Niger, your relatives come too: they sleep on the floor by your bed, they help look after you and your baby, and they are here, too, to donate blood if you have a postpartum haemorrhage - you only get blood if you bring your own donors.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      But they said that the father doesn't even come or deal with the child for the first few weeks or so. So, are these just people from the mother's side of the family?
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 14 Sep 12
       
      Maybe this speaks to gender roles and how they differ throughout the world? This seems to be perpetuating the female gender role as the primary care taker with babies, at least for the first part of life.
  • Of 2,600 babies born here last year, around one in six was dead at delivery or died soon afterwards. In addition, a total of 61 mothers lost their lives. This is shocking stuff: in Uppsala, where there are 4,000 births a year, two to three babies will die annually and one woman will die, on average, every seven years.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      I wonder how the US ranks in these statistics.
    • Kiera Murphy
      Kiera Murphy on 12 Sep 11
       
      This is extremely shocking. It's a shame that the technology here in the U.S. has been utilized for decades and other places in the world don't have the ability of access the advances necessary for survival. This idea pertains to more than just pregnancy and delivery. A majority of medical advances, such as medicine, is not available to the people who are in need. Letting people die when we have the resources to save their life, is not moral. I understand that because of financial reasons we can't save the world from all it's problems. But how odd is it that we can't even agree to have universal healthcare for our own citizens??
  • And then the wife gets worse and they say, well there's no point in taking her now, she's going to die anyway
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      Obviously men don't value women or children in Niger.
  • three weeks early and is slightly underweight
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 11 Sep 11
       
      if this situation were to happen in niger the baby would have died, and so would the mother if complications with the uterine scar (which would probably have not been seen) had risen.
  • Niger's women have to pay for the privilege of their substandard, inadequate services
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 11 Sep 11
       
      I think i would rather have my baby at home than walk all this way to be treated very poorly, possibly not have a midwife, and have to pay.
    • tania markussen
      tania markussen on 17 Oct 11
       
      The fact that the nigerian women have to pay for poor treatment where one in seven leads to death and where there is no medical equipment if anything goes wrong and no pain killers is very sad and feels very unfair.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 12 Sep 11
       
      This really resonated with me because I feel that it is such a strong comment on what the female population has achieved in the more advanced countries but does paint a picture of how far we are yet to come on a more global scale. I am curious as to where the 100% comes from and if the numbers prove to be completely true I would hope that the United States would strive to for this in regards to their female population, and on a broader scale the entire population to be as literate and educated as Sweden (China, Japan, etc.). While we are one of the most advanced countries in the world we still have a massive mountain to climb in relation to healthcare, education, and various other facets as a whole.
  • Sweden, by contrast, is one of the wealthiest economies on earth. Its people are healthy and well-fed, its shops well-stocked, its communications excellent and its women well-educated, with virtually 100% female literacy. More than 72% use modern contraception and the average age for a first birth is 29. The fertility rate is 1.7. It is, in every way, a happier and healthier place to be a woman.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 13 Sep 12
       
      It;s amazing what money and education can do to a community! 
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 12 Sep 11
       
      its very interesting to think of these notions of morality and personal motif in the definition of defining the line between the polis and the market when there are many limiting factors dissolving the two of them. where there is no gubernatorial sense of how to allocate resources to feed people; very little is any, and then the polis struggling to make ends meat and water of daily survival to bring into consideration that of others. certain things then become "nice problems to have" in western civilization when drinking water is abundant and famine is not an actuality as opposed to how it is in Niger where life to death is over, or under depending how you look at it, in regards to the access to something so crucial as clean water
  • To call the birth centre here basic is an understatement: to the western eye, from the outside, it resembles a neglected public lavatory
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      This line was definitely powerful in my mind. It really contrasts the difference in quality of life between a first world nation and Niger. 
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      "Why take that risk" - immediately made me cringe at the privileged healthcare that we are provided in first world nations in contrast to that which is provided in the third world.  
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      Honestly, this makes me sick. I can't stand seeing nations unable to offer proper healthcare to their citizens and then over charging. Of course we see these fees in the US as well, but predominantly the average American can afford all basic medical expenses (this is not to say we shouldn't have true universal healthcare - because we should). It saddens me that the government of Niger can not properly regulate the industry or perhaps provide some sort of aid for mothers to be. While I understand their economy is lacking, which is a much greater issue at hand, it is truly disheartening to read about all the statistics in this article and realize those deaths were of real mothers who would have survived given proper care. 
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 12 Sep 11
       
      I really do wish that more people out there could read this type of article... it really is a reality check. It deeply saddens me to not only know this new information given to me about how it is in the world of Niger, but also to know that people like Carmen really do not know how good they have it. I myself have never truly been exposed to a type of environment like Dahara's, and I am so very thankful, but many people do not have the gratitude that I do for being raised in a generally clean and safe environment where people actually work for the well-being of children and where complications are minimal, and it bothers me to know that SO many people take it for granted. 
  • in Niger, birth is considered to be women's work and fathers keep their distance. The only piece of medical equipment in evidence in the entire centre is a plastic bowl into which Dahara has delivered the placenta.
  • Mothers in labour are looked after with every hi-tech advantage possible
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      Shows a great difference in the ways women are treated in the two countries. It is to no surprise Niger, seeming to be a country still living in history and ancient Islamic beliefs, shows nearly no interest in the well being of women. Much like Afghanistan and other undeveloped Islamic countries.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 14 Sep 12
       
      Compared to Sweden, Niger is definitely less developed and less technologically advanced. Clearly, the Swedish people have more opportunities and are living in a flourishing area. 
  • Most of the mothers I talked to had had their first baby at 15 or 16 -one had had 11 babies before she was 25. Only 4% use modern contraception and not for cultural or religious reasons - many of the women I asked said they would welcome advice on spacing their children.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      Seems to be common in old traditional Islamic countries.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 13 Sep 12
       
      This makes me really happy to be living in America.
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 14 Sep 12
       
      It's crazy how different cultures can be
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      Sums up the reality and horrible differences between Sweden and a country like Niger.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 14 Sep 12
       
      A random razor blade? Seems to be an invitation for infection
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 14 Sep 12
       
      It probably is an invitation for infection, but they have no other options. Throughout the article they have said multiple times that they simply can't afford anything more efficient. In a small village like the one described they have a village attendant that has probably never had any formal training only figured some of the common things out through experience. 
  • It's 10am on a stiflingly hot Monday morning and I am in a delivery room with one of the unluckiest mothers on the planet. She is Dahara Laouali, and at the moment she is lying on a narrow, dusty hospital trolley pushing her baby into the w
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 12 Sep 12
       
      This is dumb.....
  • silence
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 13 Sep 12
       
      Why is this considered a tradition? Does anyone know why this is actually significant/symbolic for mothers in Niger? 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 13 Sep 12
       
      I have no idea, but i can only imagine how unpleasant that would be. I would like to know the answer to your questions as well.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 14 Sep 12
       
      Going through labor is a tough moment for all women. Not being able to speak or produce any type of noise would make it that much more unpleasant. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 14 Sep 12
       
      I wonder how and why this tradition started in the first place? Wonder what happens if the tradition is broken?
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 14 Sep 12
       
      Its interesting and quite saddening to see that the tradition is to endure labor in silence, especially when Nigerian mothers have so much less at their disposal, that they have to be strong when the health care is so weak... almost as though they are forced to compensate for Niger's lacking
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 14 Sep 12
       
      Interesting thought that its like they are "forced to compensate for Niger's lacking". It does kind  of seem that way. I wonder if the tradition comes out of that old saying of "children should be seen and not heard", but in this case its the women. 
  • that the messages aren't getting through
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 13 Sep 12
       
      Will it make a difference? These mothers seem very insistent on sticking to tradition; since they refuse to make any sound while giving birth to a child. I feel like some mothers would change their attitudes on breast-feeding, but others will want to commit to traditions. 
  • They scream, they shriek, they moan, they writhe: and they do it two to a room because there is no such thing as private delivery space. Nor for the most part is there any such thing as pain relief - a trip round the dispensary reveals empty shelves. Only women who have a caesarean are given anaesthetic.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 13 Sep 12
       
      It is horrible to hear about the agony that women have to go through in Niger to bring a new life into this world, a moment that should be joyous. It is astounding and I bet that many people are not even aware... we here in the United States take for granted our modern technology, safe environments, and the knowledge we have in order to have safe procedures, such as during childbirth. I hope that this changes soon in order to give these women somewhat of a relief.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 13 Sep 12
       
      I thought they had to be silent...?
  • harassed-looking midwives
  • "What makes us successful is that we put women at the centre of what we're doing,"
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 13 Sep 12
       
      This is a big difference between Niger and Sweden as Niger doesnt provide what should be necessities and the father is not apart of the birthing process, etc. In Sweden they realize how miraculous this process is, but also how precautious they need to be... I hope Niger can get sufficient funds and work on increasing their care of the women to give them some peace of mind about the labour process.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 14 Sep 12
       
      this is a better difference becasue sweden women have better care than Niger women niger women are poorer and cannot access the resources that sweden women have
  • A tale of two pregnancies: from a helicopter to a horse and cart
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 13 Sep 12
       
      This last section of the article best sums up the drastic contrast between the maternity care in Sweden and Niger.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 13 Sep 12
       
      What the lady from Sweden is going to experience is something that is realistic to me, But what the lady in Niger has to go through is unimaginable. I don't think i would want to have a child if the conditions were like that. They are definitely on opposite sides of the spectrum.   
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 14 Sep 12
       
      I find this comparison troblesome. The author of the website and the organization of, save the children, are framing an argument of two locations that are the best and worst places to bear a child. I ask the question why? Why would you want to construct an article about how different Niger mother-bearing is compared to Sweden. I could assume that most readers agree that there are problems in Niger that should be addressed. The cleaver ending " A tale of two pregancies: from a helicopter to a horse and cart" should not be the focus of this web-article. THE FRAMING IS ALL WRONG, I would advise the author or authors to express more solutions. Educations is the solution. Well is it? Education is the foundation but applying the skills is the " Different plant". Sweden learned how to reduce fatality rates of giving birth by learning from the past. While Niger is still living in the past. Conflicting time zones. Joanna Moorhead should have utilized her time efficently. Instead of tell a story that everyone already knows about. She should have helped the pregant women in Niger by getting the horses ready and pleading doctors in Sweden to donate there resourses in Niger. Know that would be time well spent.
  • I'll be able to phone the hospital with any worries and the midwives will come out to see me every day if I need them," she says.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 13 Sep 12
       
      This is the complete opposite of the situation that Dahara is in with her new born. Carmen has multiple resources available with simply a phone call, while Dahara has to solve any worries on her own or with the few resources in the village
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 13 Sep 12
       
      In my sociology class we have been discussing the connections between social norms of genders and of different cultures. Whenever I picture a typical American childbirth i can always see the father nearby or helping in the delivery process, maybe even being one of the first to see the baby. In the Niger I guess the men see it as a totally female role until he can be used as labor, common in more underdeveloped communities.
  • placenta.
  • 16 Share
  • Niger is rated the world's poorest country by the UN. Around 14% of its under-fives are significantly malnourished (and in the aftermath of last year's crop shortage and in the face of another shortfall this year, that figure could soon be much worse). Less than half its population has access to safe water.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 13 Sep 12
       
      I think that this whole passage is another reminder of how great our country is. Although our country has issues deciding welfare and we aren't usually thought of to be given as many free benefits as a third world country, when you go to a hospital you are guaranteed cleanliness, proper medicine, and also a higher percentage that you and your baby will survive the birthing process. I think this in itself is just another obvious reason why the United States of America is such a great place to live and the opportunity to take advantage of all these great services. 
  • But there is more to the horrors of Zinder. Many of the women who come here will have travelled long distances, often in agony, to reach the hospital
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 14 Sep 12
       
      transportation is a serious issue for the many who dont have access to medical services, a mobile heath service should be developed so everyone can receive proper care  
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 14 Sep 12
       
      This does not surprise me at all. I do not expect many nations in Africa to have great health care systems. It shows that some people are just less fortunate due to their surroundings and resources.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 14 Sep 12
       
      It is  simply a difference in resources and medical expertise. Sweden has more money and an intricate health care system. It not only is the best country to give birth, it also has declining mortality rates and a large elderly population.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 14 Sep 12
       
      This highlights the global inequality between countries such as Niger and Sweden. And it is sad because unless there is some sort of outside help Niger is stuck in a kind of loop. Child birth will always be hard and more dangerous in a country like that unless update their infrastructure, which is almost impossible because of the lack of money. If you scale this down and look at singular countries we have the same types of inequality problems that we see on a world scale. Many times low income families are left with fewer opportunities just as poor countries are. It is unrealistic for first world countries to pour money into everything from infrastructure, education and medicine, but since our world is becoming smaller and smaller maybe it would be advantageous to help in at least one area. 
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 14 Sep 12
       
      I agree with this point. This problem reminds me of the saying that you can give a man to fish and he can eat for one day, or you can teach the man to fish and he will always have food. there is a massive, widespread problem in Niger, as well as many other 'third world countries' that can't be fixed just by other governments supplying infrastructure or things of that nature. A widespread societal change is really necessary, but as to the best way to do that, that remains the question.
  • Dahara's husband has not been involved in the birth and is unlikely to play a big role in the early weeks with the baby
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 14 Sep 12
       
      If the woman had just given birth then she will be tired and not fully healed especially if she did get all the medical help she would have needed during the birth. She needs her husband's help so much right now and the fact that he is not helping and he's not expected to help is really just sad and could be part of the reason the children are not getting enough at a young age.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 14 Sep 12
       
      Considering that women in Niger are materially disadvantaged, I wonder what one does for a means of entertainment? Maybe this would lead to a more births? (or at least combined with the lack of contraceptives)
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 14 Sep 12
       
      Even though we are living on the same planet, ther are people who live on both sides of the spectrum, whether it be a healthy and sanitary life, or a filthy, hopeless one.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think this really highlights the difference between privileged society and those who are not so privileged. The fact that there is both physical and cultural limitations placed on these women makes me wonder if this plays a direct role in their state. Not that it has to do with all of it of course, but it might be an important factor.  Either way, comparing the situations between Sweden and Niger, it really does make one think whether what is going on in Niger could be considered an extreme of how bias can have an indirect on the welfare of its people (example: women are often illiterate, yet there is a call for more educated midwives)
  • What is needed now is an emphasis on preventing deaths in babies, especially those in the early days and weeks of life.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 14 Sep 12
       
      We can introduce as many medical technologies as possible, but what is really needed is a fundamental change in the thought of the mothers of Niger. In such a rural area, this is obviously not easy.  How can policy makers with an eye on international health make a shift towards prenatal and postnatal emphasis on health? In a country with isolated pockets of civilization are present, it is not possible to introduce a hospital or medical center that is in a convenient location for all mothers. This obviously creates an inherent inequality in these mother's ability to give birth to healthy children. The most that we can do is focus on education: As in, teaching these women the importance of vaccinations and sticking to a specific health-based regime.  We far too often underestimate the important of education on even items that, to us, seem to be common sense. Every culture is naive to certain aspects of other culture. And as strange as it sounds, it is worthwhile to try to make a fundamental changed in Nigerian culture to try emphasize health. 
  • Carmen's chance of dying as a result of childbirth over her lifetime is one in 29,800 (Dahara's, remember, was just one in seven). The risk of Tess dying in her first year is one in 333. In Sweden, 100% of births are attended by a skilled, trained midwife.
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 14 Sep 12
       
      The dramatic difference of these statistics is really sad. Losing a child is one of the hardest things things a parent has to go through. I personally know someone who lost a baby who was only 6 months old; the parents were so heart-broken for so long. In Niger, the mothers, as the fathers don't seem to be around during this time, have to go through this all the time. This is so depressing. 
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 14 Sep 12
       
      All though the thirty eight year old woman has a great chance of having a healthy baby, a hundred years ago she most likely wouldn't have survived. It is amazing what modern medicine can do. 
  • Dahara pushes, pain creasing her sweating face, and then pushes again - and suddenly between her legs there is a little boy with the walnut features of newborns everywhere, and a mop of damp, dark hair. Insa gives a delighted squeal, but Dahara is still silent: as her baby is wrapped in a cloth, she turn
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that it is amazing that there is so much of a difference in medical care between countries such as Niger and Sweden.  It's like they are from a time hundreds of years before.  
  • Death is a real possibility for women who get into difficulties giving birth in Fardun Sofo: Zeinabou Abdou, the village's traditional birth attendant, has years of experience but no drugs and no equipment except for a packet of razor blades for cutting the umbilical cord.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think this is a great example of how public policy implications in America can differ so greatly from those internationally. Sometimes it's hard for the American population to keep that in mind when getting up in arms about current issues in our society.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 14 Sep 12
       
      This was a really interesting article. From the start of the Nigerian silence birth to reading about the wealthy living of Sweden, it really did hit me that this is actually happening around the world. It made me put a lot of things in perspective. This article was really interesting to me, because it showcased the extremes of child birth from two very different countries. Not only did this article make me kind of depressed, it also made me think about everything I have now.
  • Where Uppsala's hospital is white, clean, spacious and calm, Zinder's is dirty, cramped and chaotic. The corridors are crammed with dusty, ancient-looking equipment. There are open bins and swarms of flies in the quadrangle, and cats roam free. The paint is peeling, there is no air conditioning despite temperatures of 40C and more,
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 15 Sep 12
       
      This is a nightmare. The state in which they are made to give life invites nothing but misery and the fear of death. The equipment and care (or lack thereof) that they are provided with is appalling. The entire process is terrifyingly dangerous; no human being should be made to accept these conditions. 
  • Because this boy is the fifth child Dahara has pushed into the world and of the others, only one is still alive.
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 15 Sep 12
       
      Only one is still alive? wow! did they die at birth or die sometime during there childhood? either way it shows the very poor living conditions are. Do they have a really low life expectancy age? 
  • anonymous on 12 Sep 11
     
    This lack of care available to Nigerians makes me wonder if they do not value human lives as more developed countries do. The men do not even believe that the women are worth the money to go to even a run-down hospital, and when babies die, it is such a common circumstance that it is not a big deal. Perhaps money is really hard to make in Nigeria, but life is priceless, isn't it?
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
     
    Although this article is the sad truth, Niger is one of many countries with very similar beliefs and practices. It may be gut wrenching and very foreign to us; however, that way of life is all they know. A country like that does not change because the country as a whole does not want to change. The old Islamic and cultural traditions countries practice freeze them in history. The people not only are uneducated on the modern way of life, but lack the motivation to seek the knowledge to change their own way of life. That does not dismiss the horror women face in countries like Niger, I feel people from western cultures should do their best to help, but there is only so much the modern world can do to influence an entire way of life.
  • cj_woldanski on 12 Sep 11
     
    I thought that this article was really interesting about the way that it explained some of the differences between childbirth in a technologically advanced nation and a third world nation. I think that it is unfortunate how some of these children in Niger are being born with the odds not really in their favor, but that is life. These mothers need to be more aware of what may happen to them or their children and you would think that maybe they would try to find a better site before they started the birthing process. I also thought that it was interesting how in the article, it explained how that in Sweden the health care is free, but what I would like to know is how do they get free health care because nothing in life comes free, someone is always picking up the tab.
  • Mitchell Burris on 12 Sep 11
     
    Global equity is an impossibility. This idea that Nigerian infants "deserve" the same degree of pre/post-natal care is unrealistic. Proficient medical care is essentially a luxury not a basic human right. The situation in Niger is horrific but unfortunately it's a grim fact that life simply isn't fair. Their are numerous problems in Niger and other third world countries that contribute to the poor quality of life and we (The U.S and/or philanthropic individuals) can not rectify all these problems nor is it our responsibility. I realize this sounds cold and unfeeling but I do not mean it that way.
  • Emily Shandorf on 14 Sep 12
     
    It is interesting knowing how different cultures and religions are comparing to ours. I was shocked reading that in Niger woman while having a baby don't make any noises. They suffer in pain and go through with it. Now a days in the hospitals besides getting pain killers and medicine the woman is free to complain and yell and do everything just o have a baby. America is a liberal country. In the poor countries woman usually get pregnant at a young age (15 or 16) and most of the people are not ready to be a parent for more then one child, but even for only one. It is a great responsibility and time consuming. I understand that there is only a 4% that people use contraception but the risk is high and it is not a joke to bring another human being to life. it must be difficult for Dahara seeing that her kids that she had before died and that the one that she has might or might not die. It must be a worse feeling loosing "your" human being or also aborting. I also found interesting the tradition that men don't play role in the in their child's life, they keep their distances. I would never want my husband to do that and my child to grow up without a male figure that will teach him/her new things, experiences. Another interesting fact that you can only get blood from relatives in the hospital if someone is dying or is sick and needs new blood. A good aspect that they have put in Niger is "Save the Children" which is where they take away health fees and therefore more poor people have a better chance of surviving. I agree on that the countries needs more trained midwives, well-equipped antenatal clinics to improve lives in these countries. Niger just needs help from richer countries because it is not a safe place and it is not a place to grow up a child. At the end of the article there is written "Ces't le vie", (it's life), like if it was normal that new born babies have to die from these mal treatments and diseases that in other countries could
Eric Arbuckle

Reconsiderations: John Rawls and Our Plural Nation - June 11, 2008 - The New York Sun - 6 views

www.nysun.com/...79738

shared by Eric Arbuckle on 10 Sep 11 - Cached
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 10 Sep 11
       
      though our country was based on freedom and equality this was set forth by white male protestant land owners. there can be a mutual respect when everyone can be objective about our country's greater good and what we need to do to accomplish that. but until then the reciprocity with batttle with the judgments of religion
  • Instead, they will constitute a realm of overlap among all the "comprehensive doctrines" in the envisaged society — at least all those that are "reasonable," by which Rawls means willing to respect the equal dignity of all citizens.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 11 Sep 11
       
      This refers to the idea of a universal moral grammar, where people have ideas about whether or not certain things are moral that exist across cultural and religious differences.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 12 Sep 11
       
      Whats interestring about the notion of a universal moral grammar is that it counter defines itself in a sense in that it is the notion that all societal and religious spheres of communal influence have a certain basis for conduct where it is not defined what it is that often connects them in that there is said to be a "right" way to go about looking at an issue when often times the double entendre in these comparisons of ideals that point out there is an appeal to both when there isn't a basis for a common ground to fulfill the obligations of one ideal fully to the expense of the other. an essential mutual agreement to disagree for the sake of being right over the other. for much conduct to be justifiable or condemnable
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 11 Sep 11
       
      while a governed people that is divided by differences in religion may bring the belief of an impossible stable and just society, i believe that it is possible. At the end of the day, how is this any different from divisions in political parties such as Democrats and Republicans? while issues do arise from these political differences, the country remains overall stable and just, so religion shouldn't prove to be all too different.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      Really all that it requires, like he said, is a positive starting point. If we believe it is possible than we can make it so.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • "[H]ow is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?"
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 11 Sep 11
       
      I think for this to succeed - as it has in the United States for almost 250 years - feelings pertaining to nationalism, pride, and loyalty must precede those related to religiously held beliefs.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 12 Sep 11
       
      I do like the question posed in this quote because it is a question that really reaches to the core of our culture. I think that justice must precede all religiously held beliefs and feelings. Too many of our political choices are based on feelings, and for the country to run, it must be based on firmer understandings than feelings. Just because we feel that something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. I guess on the same note, we can analyze what justice is. Is justice based on the feeling of equality ie. An eye for an eye?
  • many Americans began to worry that religious pressures were slowly distorting American institutions.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      Well even with the intent of having church and state be separate it's pretty impossible.
  • largely amoral and self-centered
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 11 Sep 11
       
      The Hobbes view on life.
    • alyssa Scheer
      alyssa Scheer on 11 Sep 11
       
      although it would be nice to have an unbiased position in politics, there is no way however to have someone not know their wealth, class, race, or gender or anything listed. therefore i think his theory is extremely flawed 
    • Joshua Gray
      Joshua Gray on 12 Sep 11
       
      I don't believe the idea of politics in a republic or democracy is to come into an argument unbiased nor should it be. However, you should be able to debate theories and ideas with an open mind. Not criticizing others for what they chose to believe. The whole point of our government system is to have citizens come together and vote for a candidate who they belive will best handle their issues. Part of politics is attempting to get the government what you think would be best for you and hopefully sometimes your peers.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 12 Sep 11
       
      in this statement alone it shows the constructs for society in the sense that past the foundation of a sphere of thought can arise a newer notion and connection of old world ideals to the development and spread of them in the existential realm of modern society from faith basis to that of the developmental acceptance of multiple doctrines of thought
    • Amanda Power
      Amanda Power on 12 Sep 11
       
      they have right to, expecially since a greater number of people beleiving in one common thing vote a certain way and thus laws that have a religious basis are passed.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 12 Sep 11
       
      Religious pluralism can survive in a constitutional democracy of course. The question is whether growing fundamentalist installations of these religions, along with a more outspoken secular community, can maintain a peaceful coexistance. Peace might mean non-violence, but could also be seen as a lack of competition for funding, legislation, and protection under the law through otherwise unconstitutional means. 
  • Rawls believed that philosophy's contribution to politics ought to be made in this way. Abstract models of an ideal can be extremely valuable as targets on which to fix our attention, as we try to make the world that way, rather than its current way or some worse way.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
       
      "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." -Ronald Reagan
  • anonymous on 12 Sep 11
     
    I feel that in many ways America has accomplished the goal the author discusses, but in many ways this goal needs work. It is almost impossible for this to have any level of success without a separation of church and state, but beyond that, many citizens tend to base their political standpoints on religious beliefs, which creates a complication.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • shane paulson on 12 Sep 11
     
    It is tough to intermix religion with political freedom. In order to be a successful nation, these freedoms must continue to be kept separate.
  • anonymous on 12 Sep 11
     
    If policy was easy to figure out, there would neither be so many theories on it, nor debate. I believe that it was smart of Rawls to make his ideas abstract because in society, scenarios are constantly changing with the advent of new technologies and ways of living. Different people believe that life has different meanings, and the pursuit of all of them by all people may cause some to get in the way of others. A world in which everyone is able to pursue what their lives' meanings require of them can only exist in theory because it is impossible to satisfy everyone, especially since paradigms are so changeable.
  • Eric Arbuckle on 12 Sep 11
     
    In America there always has to be conflicting beliefs in politics, morals, and justice. Rawls has a biased one sided belief in his own views of how America should be run. But that is what makes America so great, Rawls and Nussbaum are certainly permitted to voice their one sided opinion that there is only one way to run the country correctly. Thus, bringing on the far left of the Democratic Party. However, the far right of the Republican Party does the same thing with its own beliefs. Just like anything in life and in politics, there should be a happy medium. There should be a government and system in place that protects the core foundations of America, but brings forth new ideas involving modern times and the diversity of America.
Flavio Guzman

Edge: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE By Steven Pinker - 4 views

www.edge.org/...pinker07_index.html

shared by Flavio Guzman on 27 Oct 11 - Cached
  • Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 27 Oct 11
       
      I am curious to see what else is in this article, seeing as this fact seems completely false. It is hard to think that we are "probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth" when we see violence everywhere, stretching from homes in a normal and quiet neighborhood to the huge OWS protest. I do not see how he came to this conclusion that it is so peaceful, but I guess I will soon find out. 
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 27 Oct 11
       
      Compared to past history, we are peaceful!
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 28 Oct 11
       
      I suppose that we are peaceful compared to past history given our capacity for violence. If our society was as freely violent as the past, the police may have simply shot the protestors instead of using arrests and tear gas. While I would not say we are peaceful, we have come to show more restraint regarding violent actions.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 28 Oct 11
       
      I would definitely say that we kill people much less frequently than our past history as the human race. Just a small example, in Ancient China or Japan, if you looked at royalty you would be beheaded. If you got in the way of someone who had higher status, you could be killed. I think that nowadays, we take a lot more time into thinking about things before killing. The idea of killing has become so much more reprehensible now than it has been in the past.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 28 Oct 11
       
      Not only would I agree that we kill people much less than in the past, but we in the US are also much less oppressive of humans in general. I feel that in a lot of ways, we have learned from our past mistakes; slavery, Native American land takeovers, Japanese internment camps...and will definitely not be making any of these again any time soon.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 28 Oct 11
       
      I agree that looking back at history this is the most peaceful time. Despite the fact that we are involved in two wars they are not deeply intrusive in our lives (another reason why they probably haven't taken so long to conclude) where in past when a country would go to war it completely changes the lives of the citizens. Also pulling back from the american point of view other than small civil conflicts there are very few prolonged wars.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 28 Oct 11
       
      Comparing today's events to those of history I would have to agree with the statement that we are a more peaceful era. Perhaps that is because we don't have to be in such close contact with our enemies and technology is constantly changing how we interact. However, we are more sympathetic to the human condition, at least the new generations are. And whether you agree with our intentions being a fad or not, we still put a lot more effort forth in helping others in need more so than we did in the past. 
  • The doctrine of the noble savage—the idea that humans are peaceable by nature and corrupted by modern institutions—pops up frequently in the writing of public intellectuals like José Ortega y Gasset ("War is not an instinct but an invention"), Stephen Jay Gould ("Homo sapiens is not an evil or destructive species"), and Ashley Montagu ("Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood"). But, now that social scientists have started to count bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 27 Oct 11
       
      I believe this to be the author's main arguement in the article
    • Flavio Guzman
      Flavio Guzman on 30 Oct 12
       
      I don't believe that humans are corrupted by mordern institutions when it comes to violence. If this were the case we would have more violence now, then before, when people relied more on instinct.
  • correctness from the other end of the ideological spectrum has also distorted many people's conception of violence in early civilizations—namely, those featured in the Bible. This supposed source of moral values contains many celebrations of genocide, in which the Hebrews, egged on by God, slaughter every last resident of an invaded city. The Bible also prescribes death by stoning as the penalty for a long list of nonviolent infractions, including idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, disrespecting one's parents, and picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The Hebrews, of course, were no more murderous than other tribes; one also finds frequent boasts of torture and genocide in the early histories of the Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and Chinese .
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 27 Oct 11
       
      I find it very interesting that the author chose to reference even different religions to prove his point. What he states as supporting evidence is true, and this helps make his arguement very believable.
    • Taylor Rofinot
      Taylor Rofinot on 28 Oct 11
       
      i feel that the author is hitting a very true and key point in this paragraph and makes it even more solid by tying in multiple religions. it does show how much we have changed as humans and as cultures.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 27 Oct 11
       
      If someone thinks this way, in a pessimistic point of view, then yes we would be in the most peaceful time in history. But this peaceful time still isnt too peaceful because we have ongoing wars and genocides around the world. although i dont think we will ever reach a time period in which there is absolute world peace, one can think as this time being the most peaceful since we dont go about unnecessarily killing people, or even animals as they used to do in the 19th century.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 27 Oct 11
       
      i understand what you are saying above but they are talking about how morals and beliefs have shaped our new society of lack of violence but is it really fair to compare the two when morals varied, lifestyles were different and people had different priorities? good article but would have liked alil more statistics.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 28 Oct 11
       
      I think that the cat burning is just completely different. Yes, our idea of entertainment has become less violent in general but we still have wars, we still kill each other, there is still rape and murder and violence so I don't necessarily see a huge difference.
  • On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture: Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century.
    • alyssa Scheer
      alyssa Scheer on 28 Oct 11
       
      War over the years has gotten a lot more advanced technologically. although this would be a reason for more deaths because we has mass murder weapons such as the atom bomb, the democracy portion of war has increased. People are more willing to reason when the weapons we have or they have can wipe out the entire human population.
    • Jacqueline Ramsay
      Jacqueline Ramsay on 28 Oct 11
       
      This is a very interesting concept and I would agree with this statement that the value of an individual life has increased. However, is this a proven fact? How does the author back this up? When looking at the numbers of battle deaths in the 50's compared to today, the 2,000 average a year in modern day society seems like a lot of lives while the 65,000 in history is difficult to fathom happening today. Is this because humans have truly put a greater value to life or because we do not know how we would react to the number of deaths if we were living back then? Cultural changes in America regarding financial success as well as medical discoveries leading to longer lives realistically do seem to add value.
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 02 Nov 12
       
      That is a very good point. I think that society is attaching more value to life than before. Obviously life has always had value but due to longer life spans life the length of somebody's life has a direct meaning to their socio-economic status. The higher status people tend to have a longer life span than those that are lower. Life has always had this connection but in today's society, it is much easier to point out the different levels of socio-economic status.
  • And the choice to focus on relative rather than absolute numbers brings up the moral imponderable of whether it is worse for 50 percent of a population of 100 to be killed or 1 percent in a population of one billion.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 28 Oct 11
       
      This is a very interesting point to bring up about perspective and how every problem cannot be so simple. How do we measure the intensity of conflicts when these two conflicts can differ greatly in the number of people affected?
  • The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon, visible at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and years. It applies over several orders of magnitude of violence, from genocide to war to rioting to homicide to the treatment of children and animals.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 28 Oct 11
       
      not only is there different terms of violence but there is different terms of evolution to becomiing a society that views violence differently and for the better. that process takes time.
  • Valencia Hamilto on 28 Oct 11
     
    I agree .. I do believe that we are living in the most peaceful decade however we truly arent that peaceful .. we still have a great amount of violence going on all over the world.
Mike Frieda

Dan Dennett on dangerous memes | Video on TED.com - 0 views

www.ted.com/...ennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

shared by Mike Frieda on 31 Oct 11 - Cached
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 31 Oct 11
       
      This guy is reppin' a legit beard. And he sounds like Garrison Keillor.  Now that that's out of the way... I agree Mr. Dennett that there are memes out there that represent a clear and present danger to secular and free societies (i.e. radical Islam).  These need to be stamped out utilizing every military, intelligence, and media asset in our arsenal. However, there are other memes which are simply the product of our capitalist society, such as pornography and violent video games.  While these may be morally wrong to many people, I do not believe they necessarily pose any threat to society as a whole.  Rather, it is simply something that people may see as distasteful and choose to avoid.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 31 Oct 11
       
      In such cases as ideas, I don't think it possible to completely eradicate an idea. To quote a favorite movie of mine, "Ideas are bulletproof". As long as there is someone somewhere with radical ideas, it will never die and it can never be destroyed. Ideas spread faster than an epidemic and trying to terminate it will only make it stronger. If you try to destroy an idea, people begin to wonder why, and when you open their eyes to the idea, for some it will take hold.
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 31 Oct 11
       
      I got to agree with Jonathan, it is one of the many ideas from the movie Inception. Ideas are one of the most dangerous things there are. I feel like everything he said was from Inception it is all true of course an idea is something that is so dangerous, it can take over a country. Ideas can spread like something the world has never seen.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 31 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Jonathan. Despite the fact that you may want to eradicate a radical idea it is near impossible. It goes back to a persons free will. It is under their own free will that they chose to believe and support and idea. An idea is an intangible thing which makes it so dangerous. You cannot fight an enemy you cannot see so how do we expect to eradicate an intangible idea we cannot see or combat.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 31 Oct 11
       
      While free will and the way it affects how people feel about their ideas and the ideas of others is important to consider here, we must also understand the idea of a totalitarian ruler and mindset. You can't necessarily always change someone's beliefs, but these people are belief creators. They have the capability to spread ideas throughout a society using the bandwagon technique, and through doing so are able to pose one meme, or general feeling, upon an entire society.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 31 Oct 11
       
      It is hard to convince people to change their minds. But people create their own ideas and the only way to change them is if it is relatable to them. I read a book that suggests that the only way people can be empathetic is if they are related to the problem or the issue. Because people are never empathetic unless they have a connection to the problem. We won't believe or support an idea, unless it is close to us.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 01 Nov 11
       
      People create their own ideas based off information provided to them, what they do with that information is up to them. Some people turn information they have and make it into something else. Some people say they change their minds because of people in their life that have influenced them, I feel its more they have taken into consideration what they have learned and made the decision for themselves to change their mind.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 31 Oct 11
       
      Just a quick note...first Shermer and now Dennett?!?  Dr. Marichal, you keep picking some of my favorite authors! 
  • Eric Arbuckle on 31 Oct 11
     
    One statement from Mr. Dennett I agree with is, "we have to focus on the facts before we worry about the morality of problems." Well, what he said went something like that. Radical Islam is a meme that is becoming larger and more powerful consistently as our world moves forward. However, there is no clear way to solve the problem, or even slow it down. Military action sounds great on the surface, but there is always a new leader next in rank. And for every one we kill, dozens or even hundreds are persuaded into the unstoppable virus of radical Islam. As John said, we need to utilize every asset we have. And, I could not have said it better than John about the memes that do not pose any real threat to society as a whole.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Mark Drach-Meinel on 31 Oct 11
     
    I really like how Mr. Dennett makes the comparison between ideas and viruses (virii?). I agree that ideas are contagious and sometimes this can be a bad thing. But this can also be very good. Ideas of universal kindness can be spread by just having such an idea. Ideas and memes shape the world more than anybody can see without having an outside view on the big picture.
  • anonymous on 31 Oct 11
     
    Memes are fascinating! Like many other things we discussed in Public Policy, we also talked about this in Humanities Tutorial. Socrates said that some men are pregnant in body (meaning they reproduce through means of genetics), while others are pregnant in spirit (thereby begetting ideas, virtue, and wisdom). Mr. Dennett explained how spreading ideas are more powerful. This really separates humans from other animals, for they have the ability to influence so many through their ideas. This is more apparent now than ever before, with media and videos like Mr. Dennett's.
  • Kiera Murphy on 31 Oct 11
     
    "We're all responsible for just the intended effects of ideas but for their likely misuses." Dennett makes a solid point. We have to stay away from the misuses of valuable ideas. At about the seventh minute or so he explains that people tend to be scared of ideas and charcuterie them for one dire purpose or another. I completely agree with this theory. I think it's important to be confident in a valid useful idea and not deviate from it's positive effects. Therefor the memetic perspective that Dennett explains is clearly is a solution.
  • cj_woldanski on 31 Oct 11
     
    I agree that memes are contagious because of the way we think about ideas. If someone has an idea that is an originial idea or thought, they think it is the greatest idea ever and if someone has a different idea then you most likely do not care for it. Many ideas could turn out to be bad over time. Mr. Dennett argued that as evolution continued to happen we the more memes that we thought of. As we all continue to grow, we will continue to have different ideas that get better and better.
  • magen sanders on 31 Oct 11
     
    when he first began to talk about the ant and how there is a parasite making it suicidal i began to think about the movie the happening, when the plants release a toxin that does the same thing to the human brain. then humans present differeent ideas and fears that make the situation worse, they begin to do what Dennett is talking about they plant ideas in eachothers minds and take over and cause panic. people think they are in control but they really arent when these different ideas take hold
  • Andrew Rothans on 31 Oct 11
     
    Memes can be extremely contagious due to the effects of our ideas and the ideas we have. Ideas can be very dangerous at times, but could also be very influential. It really depends how we go about acting upon our ideas. He explained how spreading ideas is more powerful and I agree with Dennett. It really gives citizens all points of view and could sway or change peoples opinions.
Kayla Sawoski

Dan Dennett: Dangerous memes | Video on TED.com - 2 views

www.ted.com/...ennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

shared by Kayla Sawoski on 02 Nov 12 - Cached
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 02 Nov 12
       
      It is crazy how he talks about memes as viruses that infect people and influence others. Our ideas are not our own but are passed down by others and influenced. I think in the beginning when he is talking about evolution he is saying that human "evolution" is actually not benefitting us the same way an animal's evolution benefits it. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 04 Nov 12
       
      I think there is obviously a big distinction between how evolution affects humans and animals but Dan Dennett's ideas are definitely defined. Your statement about how our ideas are not only our own thought but influenced by others is a great statement because it is so true. 
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 02 Nov 12
       
      When he started talking about the fact that ideas became infectious, he totally captivated my attention. I see ideas in the same way; and the way he explained it made it so interesting! But when he got into the part about memes, I kind of got confused, since my frame of a meme is that of my generation, rather than what he was talking about. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 05 Nov 12
       
      I agree, I really like how he started out his presentation and seemed to follow along with what he was talking about, understood how ideas became so infectious. I started getting lost when he talked about memes. I didn't really understand memes in the first place, but the way he described it was not very interesting so it was harder to follow. He would randomly draw my attention back, like when he talked about celibacy and joked about no one it died out. 
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 05 Nov 12
       
      I agree to an extent. I think that ideas are passed down and influenced to an extent but there are also many new ideas. People have evolved in so many ways and that is partly because people come along with new and educated views. With great advancements in educations and technology people are able to have new ideas about things.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 05 Nov 12
       
      This is definitely a point I agree with. It seems as though he is saying that our ideas are not original, but a different version of someone else's idea. The meme subject was slightly confusing, and I lost track of what he was trying to say.
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 05 Nov 12
       
      I agree as well. Ideas are definitely infectious. I feel as if we are in a society that is so accustomed to that. We see something, a meme or not, that influences us to feel a certain way. We tend to pass these feelings towards others.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 04 Nov 12
       
      I really liked Dennett's metaphor about the ant and the parasite to explain how in humans, ideas can be like parasites in the way they develop and spread. I agree that spreading ideas can be harmful to other cultures that are not accustomed to them. It is easy for us to not acknowledge the impacts of our ideas on other cultures because we are already used to them. However, we must use realize our the potential impacts that our ideas can have on other cultures and societies. 
  • ...18 more annotations...
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 05 Nov 12
       
      When everybody's ideas are shared, they do act as parasites. Some people might be immune to them in the sense that it may not affect them directly, but to a different person it can have an impact on them, negative or positive. As humans, we pursue ideas that we feel are important or that make us happy.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 05 Nov 12
       
      agreed, however its human nature to share and create ideas. Government or american citizens definitely don't consider the effects that our decisions have. But anything potentially could be harmful, such as idea, speech, or actions.  I agree with you though most people might not see ideas as a bad thing, only because there blind any effects. 
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 05 Nov 12
       
      Humans are often blinded by ideas, as messr. Dennet pointed out. Ideas definitely aren't innately good or bad, even if the idea is sketch, but rather it's what people do with those ideas and how they capitalize on the emotion the idea incites.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 05 Nov 12
       
      I really liked the point that he brought up when he said that when he say that "we are all responsible for our ideas . . .and there likely missuses". I feel like a lot of people take an idea and blow it out of the water and make the idea go much bigger then intend. We have to watch what we say because someone could take it in a different light.  
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 05 Nov 12
       
      I enjoyed the way he spoke about the spread of ideas and evolution of memes. Its relation to the spread of a virus is impressive and accurate in many ways. Viruses are dangerous agents which multiple quickly and can be considerably difficult to exterminate in some cases. The formation of a parasitic pathogen is an interesting comparison because, like an idea or meme, it does not need to ensure the survival of its host to remain in existence. He does a wonderful job of observing the similarities when he includes the fact that ideas, like viruses, do not rely on genetic transmittal for dissemination but rather, exist because we exist. As with any other infectious agent, an idea or a meme can be destructive, and may reverse or undermine our more self-preserving processes. 
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 05 Nov 12
       
      I find it interesting how most of the ideas that spread the most over the internet and through technology are the toxic ideas. The toxic memes establish a prominent position in our mind and that is what many focus on. We are the carriers of these toxic memes, much like the ant is of the fluke parasite.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 05 Nov 12
       
      I find it interesting how most of the ideas that spread the most over the internet and through technology are the toxic ideas. The toxic memes establish a prominent position in our mind and that is what many focus on. We are the carriers of these toxic memes, much like the ant is of the fluke parasite.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 05 Nov 12
       
      I really like Daniel Dennett and his movie the four horsemen, this was not his best performance speaking wise and he is definitely not the speaker that Christopher Hitchens was or Sam Harris is.  However, I like this talk, I like that he uses his knowledge of science to help explain the severity of the take over of the mind that these memes have on people just like the parasite he talkes about in the beginning. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 05 Nov 12
       
      Thoughts as a virus is an interesting way to look at things. However, I personally disagree. At least to me, ideas and thoughts are more of gene than anything. One that you can grow out of, but I feel like it's more accurate to say some of these things are passed down rather than "infected".
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 05 Nov 12
       
      The idea that certain ideas can spread and harm certain other people was an interesting one. We all like to think new ideas and progressive though as a good thing, but this TED talk presents a different view on the issue. Personally, I believe that cultures are ever evolving and sometimes new ideas are needed, even if there are growing pains. But these pains can also have a negative effect. A good example would be the Arab Spring in the last few years. Although it is objectively good that harsh dictators are taken out of power, new ideas can create an even more dangerous form of society. As with all of life, there is the good and the bad with this shift. 
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 05 Nov 12
       
      We are responsible for what we do with others ideas. We are responsible for the outcomes of how we implement the idea. He talks about the spreading of toxic ideas (memes) on a worldly scale but we can also see this a prevalent theme in politics, especially in this election. The motive of many of these campaign tactics is to see who can spread a toxic meme the fastest. People become wrapped up in this negative exchange which is influencing people (probably in the ways that they intend) for the wrong reasons. Reform is needed in the campaign process to bring things like elections and policy making back to the initial responsibility of government, to protect the people and make a good society for people to flourish. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 05 Nov 12
       
      I enjoyed that he used the idea of bugs infecting our minds. I personally hate bugs and i think that many of the ideas that are being spread by technology are like bugs, they're bad or harmful. His jokes were also entertaining but i could also relate and understand his message. 
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 05 Nov 12
       
      I really liked the comparison between the parasite in the ant and the ideas in a human, as I was watching this video I couldn't help but feel very compelled by his words, I think that his talk was a very accurate description of how things in the mind work. The concept that an idea can be a virus in the brain and take over is scary but true. I hate to make this reference, but I think that Inception is really based on that idea... his wife kills herself because the idea, or virus, says that her world is not real.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 05 Nov 12
       
      Personally, although I found many of his ideas, such as the danger of spreading certain ideas to other cultures, to be intriguing and, in some senses, true, I was very turned off by his flippant treatment of religion as a whole. I think it is simply ignorant and prideful to look at something, like religion, which has been an intrinsic part of humanity since the beginning of human history and which many very smart, well-educated people have held to, and to simply brush it off as an "infection of ideas." He came across, to me, as very disrespectful, narrow minded, and pompous. I think he had a lot of great ideas and he seems like a very smart man, but I think it is simply prideful to so easily disregard religion as a whole. Some of the most intelligent and well-educated people in all of human history have also been some of the most fervently religious, and I feel that Dennett injures his own argument by treating them so flippantly.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 05 Nov 12
       
      He has very strange trasitions between subjects. I like how he connects the infectious fluke to emotions that infectious to humans. Memes are very strange. There are different species, some that can be pronounced and some that can't. Why were memes feared? And why does "meme" now a days mean pictures with funny comments on them? Againt things repeat themselves no matter how much you try to keep them from happening again. I like how he says the way to fight memes is to inform yourself and fix it rather than just be mad about it. Very smart man.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 05 Nov 12
       
      One thing that I really found interesting was when he said that people take ideas out of context. He said that people have to watch what they say because others might twist them into something completely opposite. An example of this would be my English class. In class we analyze book after book and sometimes it makes me wonder what if the author only meant what was said and not some analyzed piece that we came up with.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 05 Nov 12
       
      Dennet's TED Talk about comparing developing memes to viruses are interesting. However, I disagree because people today are exposed to media information and this creates new cultures and ideas. Sure they "retire" old customs, but life changes and with today's technology,
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 05 Nov 12
       
      (cont.) ...the pace is much faster and more accesible than ever before.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 05 Nov 12
       
      I am kind of confused by the TED Talk but I got the jist of what he was saying. I don't think ideas are just floating around i think that there are built within us and later discovered.
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 05 Nov 12
       
      I like that simple analogy to get across a pretty important point. We have now, with globalization, a pretty small world. Ideas are rubbing next to each other more and more. We see that now with the Middle Eastern ideas and ideologies and our ideologies of 'free' in the West. We have to be cognizant of how we approach these other cultures and societies because if we are not then we will continue to have the problems that we have today. Hopefully people will start to look more openly at other cultures and religions. To do that maybe we need to look at our own beliefs, we think that what we believe in is the right thing, maybe it is, but maybe it isn't. We can't just be critical of someone else just because they believe or live by a different code.  
    • Phillip Delgado
      Phillip Delgado on 05 Nov 12
       
      A meme is only dangerous because another meme told us. In his philosophy we as humans don't have independent thoughts but they are moldered together through life and experience. This is just a simple idea of norms and values.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 05 Nov 12
       
      I liked how he combined his philosophical ideas with science. I liked how he related sickness with ideas. He brought up a good point, technology does spread ideas more, either good or bad.  The 'toxic' ideas do wipe out a lot of important things, like culture and tradition depending on what information is being presented. I agree completely with Dan Dennett.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 06 Nov 12
       
      I thought that this TED Talk was very interesting. Dan is basically stating that we as humans are easily influenced from other ideas. We sometimes are influenced by toxic ideas that can hurt us. We need to change this and spread encouraging ideas instead. 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      I completely agree that we should be spreading encouraging ideas instead of degrading ones. Relating this to the political adds we were seeing so much of a few weeks ago, we need to focus on the positives more.
Kim H

Jay-Z vs the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate | Marc Lynch - 3 views

lynch.foreignpolicy.com/...or_the_american_primacy_debate

shared by Kim H on 10 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • When he learnt this lesson might also offer insights into how great powers in IR learn.  He changed his style after his most famous beef, and the only one which he lost:  his battle with the Queensbridge legend Nas
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 10 Nov 11
       
      Never! Jay won this battle :) Supa Ugly!!
  • Jay-Z is a bit different, given his hegemonic status and the absence of a prior relationship. The Game has always had a particularly odd, passive-aggressive relationship with Jay-Z.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 11 Nov 11
       
      Game wants to be Jay z. Simply, the game has not been the same since he left GUNIT. If he attacks rap hero, its nothing because the hero wont even respond. Jay z started a new trend by not responding to rappers or by subliminally mentioning them. With his age, i think maturity is also apart of his resistance not to respond to the game, but rap is a young man's sport. Jay z is getting old in their eyes!
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 16 Nov 12
       
      I also think that the west coast v east coast battle (that has been going on since biggie and 2pac) may have something to do with this.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 16 Nov 12
       
      its all about whos on top, competitive game to rule the rap world.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 16 Nov 12
       
      Agreeing with Justina about the west coast vs. east may have something to do with it. Many rappers today are either from one side or the other and are gang affiliated. This posses rivalrys between many of the famous rappers in which there lyrics talk badly about one another. But it seems like the little tiff with Jay Z and the game can stem from west vs. east but is so minor that Jay Z could careless. I feel like the game is insecure and is somewhat jealous of Jay Z's fame and status in the rap game.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      The east coast vs the west coast, as well as rival gang affiliations on either side of the country definitely  play a role in how rappers respond to one another. someone else mentioned that ignoring someone is the best dis, and often times, i think that's true. a lot of people just want attention and so they try to start fights where there doesn't need to be any. 
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 11 Nov 11
       
      It goes back to the idea that giving importance to those who have less power than you do whether it is politically based or a music rivalry will only increase the power social power of the lesser party. Yet if you use your power to completely oppress the party with the less power, then you are seen as abusing importance of your power in society. So then what is one to do? How d
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 11 Nov 11
       
      I think Jay-Z is just best leaving things as is and not interfering. Similar to the world of politics and society in general, retalliation even when provoked does not shed the person in a good light...thats because society sees it as "whoever walks away without causing more harm or offending somebody, even when you were offended, is the bigger person". As a result, if they dont "walk away", it ends up being detrimental to a persons career
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 16 Nov 12
       
      I wonder what would have happened if we had used this way of thinking after 9/11 attacks...
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree that it is probably best for Jay-z to walk away and be the "bigger person" even if it means letting the Game win.  It's interesting to apply this to 9/11. It would have saved alot more lives. But i think that with so many lives that were lost in 9/11, if nothing happened then the public would be dissatisfied. The ones who lost people would feel like no one cared. 
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 16 Nov 12
       
      i also agree that Jay-Z is being the bigger person by not responding to the Game's offensive comments.Being the better person, I think, only applies when people are not being hurt or killed. In the  case of the 9/11 attacks however, it is the government's duty to protect its citizens.  They needed to respond with force because if we did not, then other countries might get the idea that we are passive and non-confrontational.   This may open up the doors for more attacks on the U.S. resulting in the loss of more lives.
  • ...10 more annotations...
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 11 Nov 11
       
      I think the author's friends reaction is what most people also think. But why should another rappers beliefs affect his career negatively? There is the question of whether or not he has the right to express his beliefs in that manner, but then do WE have the right to judge him because of his beliefs and then affect his career in singing?
  • His best hope is probably to sit back and let the Game self-destruct, something of which he's quite capable  (he's already backing away from the hit on Beyonce) -- while working behind the scenes to maintain his own alliance structure and to prevent any defections over to the Game's camp.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 11 Nov 11
       
      Jay-Z does benefit the most by letting the Game make a fool of himself in the public's eye. He has the most to lose. He's a smart man and much like politics he knows when he needs to step up and defend himself and when he needs to let a punk kid run his mouth and ruin their own career. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree with this statement, it is a very smart idea for Jay-Z to just sit back and not fight back... Game will self-destruct himself. He will make a fool of himself by proceeding to go after Jay-Z and having Jay-Z ignore him. Jay-Z will be looked at as the better person.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 16 Nov 12
       
      This seems an awful lot like the game of politics. Rappers or politicians, it's fiercely competitive and people will rise and fall on their own accord. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 16 Nov 12
       
      Jay-Z is handling the situation right. If someone is trying to push your buttons for no valid reason and is not cooperating, then the best thing to do is wait for the opposing side's self destruction. I agree with Caitlin, Jay-Z looks better compared to the Game , making him more mature.
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 16 Nov 12
       
      Jay-z definitely is being smart about how he reacts. Just like in politics, if someone attacks you or says something bad about you, you would just look as stupid and rude as they did when they tried to attack you. You always look better if you handle it maturely.
  • Should he use this power to its fullest extent, as neo-conservatives would advise, imposing his will to reshape the world, forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership?
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 11 Nov 11
       
      I definitely do agree with Jay-Z having A LOT of power. I really do believe that he could do whatever he wanted and it would be accepted by most people, regardless of what it was. Of course, not everyone is always happy, but he can surely appease plenty of people.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree, plus he's a pretty respectable guy. But even if he has a lot of power to do what he wants, either make a change or not, it's his choice to make that decision. I'm not really sure if I like how they stated this question though, "forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership." Yeah, he has a lot of power, but it feels like the author is making him seem more powerful than he really is.
    • haakonasker
      haakonasker on 16 Nov 12
       
      I agree. He is a very respectible guy. He does have a lot of power, and beeing with Beyonce make them a incredible powerful couple in the music industry. The have already supported president Obama and gay marriage. This will influence a lot of people.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 16 Nov 12
       
      I never really thought much about cultural hegemony. Many rap artists such as jay z (and especially jay z). Through his songs and their lyrics he can manipulate culture and interests if he truly is that influential (I personally never thought twice about the guys). But he should use that power to the utmost extent if his message was good by our societal values. But it would be very dangerous if they weren't.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 14 Nov 12
       
      A part of me hopes that people do not take everything Jay-Z sings about as part of their own ideologies.  He is number one on the Forbes list as an entertainer and I think people forget that, there is a certain amount of meaning to his rap but he is also making music that he hopes will sell and make him a lot of money and not always trying to send the most morally correct message to listeners.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 16 Nov 12
       
      I totally agree with you, as smart as Jay-z may be about how to sell records and build a reputation and business in the music industry does not mean that his opinions or music have any kind of substance.
  • the countdown to the end of the Game's career starts today.
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 15 Nov 12
       
      I think since this paper was written in 2009 is really shows the power that people have over others. This line shows it perfectly because I have heard Jay-Z for the last couple of years on the radio and in the media but i hear none of The Game, I don not even know who he is (this could be due to the fact that I listen to country) But this still shows that if you criticize  someone in power the back lash could take you down and make them even more popular because people will want to defend and help someone who has not said some thing back, for example Taylor swift and Kanye we all know what I mean just by me saying their names together and that did help her career because it put her in the news much more then if she would have just won and got her award.
  • So what does Jay-Z do?  If he hits back hard in public, the Game will gain in publicity even if he loses... the classic problem of a great power confronted by a smaller annoying challenger
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 15 Nov 12
       
      I believe that it is best to do what is mentioned below... to let the Game continue on his way and the public will probably see it as a reach for power or publicity and Jay-Z will look like the good guy with not confronting the Game and causing a huge scene. The politics can relate to this as people do not want to see ugly confrontations, we want to see maturity to handle our society and make progress for a better society.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 16 Nov 12
       
      This 'matchup' is very similar to political figures, as well as between countries. If we were watching a presidential debate and saw one politician pining at the other and mocking them (or negative ads, generally. but not always), we would instantly be turned away as long as the receiver of the disses stayed above it all
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 16 Nov 12
       
      A well established power does not need to address all the up and coming challengers that my come his/her way. Publicly confronting a smaller force may give it more power or momentum by giving the smaller force. Bringing the well established power down a few levels so the well established power must do one of two things. Assume it is just a phase that will quickly die down or cut off all sources of power that may help the up and coming power.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 15 Nov 12
       
      If Jay-Z ignores the game, he will look like the bigger person. When the game led crowds in cheers of "F*** Jay-Z" and "Old Ass N*****" at some of his shows, it seemed like he was trying to get attention as well as gain supporters while they were fully into his music. 
  • As Jay-Z got older and more powerful, the marginal benefits of such battles declined and the costs increased even as the number of would-be rivals escalated
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 16 Nov 12
       
      This methodology obviously worked for him, now owning part of the Brooklyn Nets, albiet a small part, producing an incredibly successful album with Kanye West, being featured on multiple tracks with the G.O.O.D Music group, and marrying Beyonce. He didn't try and follow his predecessors, and did not let others like The Game sway his postions. His tenacity led him to the top, and he and his wife are one of the richest and most successful couples in Hollywood. 
  • He's generally avoided getting embroiled in beefs since reaching the top, only occasionally and briefly hitting back at provocations from rising contenders like 50 Cent, Lil Wayne, and others.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 16 Nov 12
       
      I feel being an adult and not responding to these things speaks more than any attempt Jay-Z might have to defend himself. Instead of stooping to their level, he simply has to show that he is too mature for their childish antics and that he has no interest in responding to them. I guess you could say that Jay-Z is avoiding the inducements that the other rappers are trying to get him to fall for. 
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 16 Nov 12
       
      its good, rappers these days are degrading and its all about the game and whos on top. He is a good example of working hard and making good choices that has led him to be successful.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 16 Nov 12
       
      This is really interesting. I never knew that rap was the equivalent to a competition, to a lot of people. Very passive-aggressive
Sabryna Aylard

Discussion questions for 11/21 on Facts in Policy Paradox - 23 views

I don't think so because in a free society, individuals are free people with choices and some choose to not be rational. So we can try to get people to become rational to a point but a whole societ...

started by Tyler Coville on 19 Nov 11 4 follow-ups, last by Sabryna Aylard on 22 Nov 11
Sean McCarthy

Uzodinma Iweala - Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa - 3 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2007071301714.html

shared by Sean McCarthy on 04 Oct 11 - Cached
  • Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been "granted independence from their colonial masters," as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned?
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 04 Oct 11
       
      Now this is the question. It is not about why Americans are helping Africa, but it is about who are being highlighted as the faces of saving Africa. This is partly the media's fault, but it is also a guilt trip of Americans becasue of previous slavery and racism towards African Americans. Highlighting these people is a way to show reparations and the new and improve America. To show how white people are helping the poor Africans. However, this is unfortunate because some of these people do these things out of the kindness of their heart and not for the public hype. There is nothing wrong with helping those in a less fortunate space. Personally, I LOVE brangelina :)..Nevertheless, they are not the only ones helping those in Africa and Africans are not the only people who need help.
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 04 Oct 11
       
      In today's society everything is about celebrities and what they do for the world. Bono and Angelina Jolie are an example of white people helping the poor Africans. I completely agree with Felicia on this one, people don't want to see someone of the same race who is just as poor trying to help someone, people want to see rich celebrities giving a helping hand because it motivates the people of the United States and around the world to try and help anyway they can. The celebrities are symbols of peace and bring the people together.
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 04 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Felecia that subconsciously, perhaps the media is placing the spotlight, and the 'halo', upon Bono and Angelina as a way to make up for the way that white people in the past have treated African Americans.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 05 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Felecia's statement. Celebrities are highlighted as the ones trying to "save" Africa as a way of generating hype for the issue, whether they are helping out of kindness or the desire for more fame. In addition to using this as a way for people to get rid of their feelings of guilt, people are motivated to give because they have placed celebrities on a pedestal. Many people give to a specific cause because they want to be like the celebrities they idolize and follow a trend rather than showing feelings of true kindness.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 05 Oct 11
       
      I agree with Felecia too!
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 05 Oct 11
       
      I agree with you Felicia. I feel that the focus is on people who are not African helping out, for the reasons you and others have pointed out. These famous celebrities get all this media for doing something with a country in need. However, the people who pay out of their own salaries to help everyone else around them, gets nothing, those people I feel are the ones really doing this for personal gain
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 05 Oct 11
       
      Felicia definitely hit the nail on the head here. I agree, and I find it a little bit unfortunate that Africa has gained the image of this disease ridden poverty stricken place due to the focus on celebrities and what they've done for this country. The media has a huge impact upon any movement or form of popular culture today, and I think the author makes a good point at the end when he states that Africa is framed as this place that needs "saving." Others feel sorry for Africa because of it, and a big deal is made of helping and being Africa's hero really, communication and maybe some alliances with other countries would be much more effective in helping Africa to come out of the vicious cycle of poverty it's been in since apartheid.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 05 Oct 11
       
      The framing heuristics of the hype of the celebrity influence of thinking celebrities are the vital sense of sincerity in actually trying to help where marketing typically is a guilt trip to advocate a cause for the sake of sales wether than the ideal is truly advocated. The severity of the heart of africa is drawn to be black and diseased where there are certain aspects of civility that africa actually has but is undermined to the sense of racial diversity.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 12 Oct 12
       
      Honestly its all part of politics.For decades the USA had gone back and forth on US policy and whether or not to intervene. Its unfortunate that Africans have this stigma attached to them as dying, and unable to help themselves at all. However stars and other white people have raised/donated mission to help them. I understand that white are portraying them a certain way but a lot of good have been done for those people.Media driven or not, I believe their is a true passion in most people to help people in Africa. Some intention may be dishonest but you can focus on the negative when trying to save lives.
  • It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 04 Oct 11
       
      Oh, how much I love this statement! Truly selflessness is a flag we all fly, as we shout out about our altruism, in order to fulfill the selfish desire for recognition, and in this case, rectification.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 05 Oct 11
       
      This is truely a good statement, since I do believe that this is very true. Westernized countries just plain feel guilty about the situation in the Middle East, therefore they took to trying to "save" Africa to clear their guilt.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 05 Oct 11
       
      I do think a lot of people just do things like this to make themselves feel better but I think it's more related to them trying to justify the way they live. How much we have compared to others. I've never really thought of it in relation to the Middle East, I don't think I see the connection.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 05 Oct 11
       
      I think that this could be attributed to a general trait that Western societies have in general... people need to help other people in order to, essentially, feel good about themselves. Yes, people may feel guilty about other situations, but I think that generally people need to do something to make themselves feel better, and that something, in this situation, tends to be "saving" Africa.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 05 Oct 11
       
      I have to comment, though it humors me you believe we are responsible for the middle east situation, I am not surprised. What is the "situation" in the middle east? How did we get there? What kind of beliefs do the radical Muslims have? And if we "messed" up the middle east and if it's our place to feel guilty, what was it like before?
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 05 Oct 11
       
      I have to agree with Sarah and Joette on this.
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 05 Oct 11
       
      If we are reasonable for the situation in the middle east who says we are not responsible for the situation in africa. We have continued to pour more money to dictators to get resources like diamonds. Which they use to buy more weapons to repress the people. We then give money for aid to these communities but they have to either go through the dictator or the dictator himself just posts a heavy tax when the currency is converted to the local currency (which he has a law in place to require)
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 12 Oct 12
       
      This statement speaks so true to all Americans because even they can honestly say that we're all guilty of this. Whether it is the government or us as individuals, people do good things to feel good about themselves. 
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is the epitome of what America had become. Actions to "help" others are taken out of personal guilt. The reasoning behind helping others, especially others, has lost meaning. It's as though people justify lending hand to others is because it's what they are supposed to do, rather than really wanting to.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 12 Oct 12
       
      I think this is also an example of the "white savior" mentality that a lot of people have, without even knowing.  Africa and its inhabitants are not seen as equals, but as things that could be saved with westernization. It's racism in a very subtle, but real, form. 
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 12 Oct 12
       
      Everyone wants to help save africa, but there are so many other problems in other countries too. Like the drug war in mexico. Africa is not the only country in need. In fact there is still a lot to do in our own country to help others.
  • as emaciated as those they want to help.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 04 Oct 11
       
      Couldn't help but giggle at this.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 05 Oct 11
       
      haha me too, very interesting statement
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 04 Oct 11
       
      It is sad really. The West feels that it needs to industrialize, modernize, and stabilize developing nations - a goal which is objectively not plausible - and there is a definet focus on Africa. While many other developing nations receive aid, African countries are singled out and lumped into one group of "african", where s south east asian countries for example would be listed by their specific names. Africa is a large continent with a VAST array of cultures, languages, races, and governments. The nations of Africa differ greatly in their levels of modernity, and to assume that the governments of Africa are corrupt or unable to fix their domestic problems, is in a subtle way, racist and ethnocentric.
  • Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Oct 11
       
      There is no doubt that Hollywood does tend to exploit people. But then again, what flashy business doesn't?
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 12 Oct 12
       
      I agree with this statement. The issues pressing onto Africa with starvation and warfare are used as simply entertainment background for cinema. Sure there is always a message with topics like this. Aid is important, but the pop culture attention drawing to Africa makes it seems like nothing is being solved at all.
  • There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans.
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 05 Oct 11
       
      Every time i see an ad or commercial about the white celebrities trying to "help Africa" a thought like this goes through my mind. I highly doubt that a celebrity with such high ratings in today's society truly wants to save Africa's poverty or starving people. I feel as if they do it more for the social attention and positive reputation rather than for their souls and well being.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 05 Oct 11
       
      I would not go so far as to say that all celebrities vie for attention by doing the "help Africa" stuff, but I would agree that a large majority do it. I don't really feel it is asserting cultural superiority or dominance as just being selfish in their own right.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 11 Oct 12
       
      I think it's really interesting how charity has become a social appeal. People don't donate because they want to help out, they donate because other people will think higher of them. A point this article is trying to make is that the publicity of "helping" is so overwhelming it almost takes away from the action itself. 
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 12 Oct 12
       
      I really agree with the above statement that people help now because they feel like everyone is and not because they are really into the cause and want to help. I think this is also why so many stars have their own foundation, they feel like more people have them then people who do not.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 12 Oct 12
       
      Does it really matter what inspires the help? As long as the people that need help get help that's what is most important. Help is help no matter how you look at it or the reasons behind it. 
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 12 Oct 12
       
      i think that it does matter. I don't think the people want others to pity them. Yes, they are receiving help but it is demeaning if people are going to help and have no passion for it. "here, take this because it will make me look good and i want to follow the trend." i don't think anyone would feel very good about getting that. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 12 Oct 12
       
      The basic premise that the author appears to be making is that of the egoism that we as "first-worlders" have in regards to Africa. The author feels that we do not help Africa typically out of genuine want to see good happen. but out of our own want to feel good about ourselves and have other perceive us as good people. Sometimes even when I do "good" things, I wonder if this is the case. Especially when I was applying for college. Did I do 200 hours of community service out of the goodness of my heart, or the want to get into a good college? The truth may lie somewhere in-between. 
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 12 Oct 12
       
      It is obviously a bit of both but I think how the media plays it, it leads us to lean towards the cultural superiority
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 12 Oct 12
       
      I understand how his "mood is dampened".  I can't stand when people feel they must talk about how amazing they are and what they have done. Whenever people do that it becomes evident that the reason they did whatever they did was to acquire more attention from others. "You have to speak to be heard, but sometimes you have to be silent to be appreciated".
  • True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 05 Oct 11
       
      I think this is the main point of the article
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 05 Oct 11
       
      But isn't that the point, these people are helping just to help and the other people are often helping to gain media attention.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 11 Oct 12
       
      I would have to agree with this point of the article as the media will portray what they want the people to focus on. If the media does not believe that certain aspects of a situation will grab the people's attention then they will not show it, even though that point could be significant in pointing out the true heroes and their actions. I find this unfortunate as the article mentioned earlier that the media portrays celebrities that help, but why not the ordinary people, especially those of Africa. The media should really get to focus on the true aspects of a situation.
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 05 Oct 11
       
      I think it's important to note that all the media cares about is the bad things that happen. They only report how Africa needs to be saved but there is no information of all the good that is being done right now.
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 05 Oct 11
       
      i agree that the media only focuses on what they want us to see, not everything in africa is as terrible as the media may portray it to be. yes situations in other countries are extremely hostile but the media tends to focus and just the negative to gain sympathy and attention to that subject. the opinions are then skewed.
  • a sexy,
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 11 Oct 12
       
      Something about using this word doesn't seem appropriate in the context of people who are active. Whenever a writer uses this word, depending on its context, I usually think less of the author. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 12 Oct 12
       
      I dont understand why this word is used in this article, it doesn't seem to fit. I agree with the above person it makes me think less of the author. 
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 12 Oct 12
       
      I feel like this word was used in this article to represent the current generation. Our current generation is basically to the extent that sex sells. So the author was just probably trying to make it known. I think the word, 'sexy' also had to do with the fact that the author was talking about celebrities in relation to the main topic.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 12 Oct 12
       
      I also agree that this was a reasonable use of the word. The lovely irrational citizens of America are much more likely to get behind something that's trendy and "sexy". And that's exactly what the author is calling us out on. Many people arent (perhaps subconsciously) 'helping' out Africa out of humanitarian love, but because it has become trendy lately. you see "sexy" people helping out kids in Africa, and you want to be "sexy" like them.. I've done a terrible job explaining the use of this word, but hopefully y'all get what I'm trying to get at.
  • stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 11 Oct 12
       
      See, this is one of the problems with widepread media campaigns... they often give people the wrong idea about what is really happening and what is the real state of people. It won't be easy to integrate into campaigns, but people need to be aware of the big picture, not just segments of it. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 12 Oct 12
       
      I sometime catch myself falling into this trap as well, I get convinced by the media campaigns that africa is just filled with disease and starving people. 
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is definitely a problem with media.  Obviously not all of Africa is as bad as we make it and it leads all of us to believe that everyone needs help.  It paints a different picture than what is actually going on.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 12 Oct 12
       
      Media blinds us from seeing the actual problem going on in Africa. I do find myself believing that these campaigns are true. The only focus on certain things that attract us to think the worst. This is a major problem in the social media campaigns
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 12 Oct 12
       
      I think that the major problem with these ad campaigns is that they only show poor run down villages. The towns that have actual success in their businesses are never shown. The play to society's emotions to raise revenues, which may or may not be helping. Although I'm sure there is corruption in Africa, the West may be trying a bit too hard to fix the problems. Social media leads society into believing they need to make a change radically, when a gradual change is probably going to help more. 
  • Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 11 Oct 12
       
      This statement could very well be true and if our country, along with others do not give them a chance how will we ever know if they can stand by themselves with good relations. I believe that it is just hard for us Americans to realize this point because we are a country that is used to helping when we believe someone needs it and it is hard to back off if you have seen they are in trouble.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 11 Oct 12
       
      I see where African is coming from, with all progress the western world sees as coming from powerful nations, when really there is quality work being done from the people of the nation themselves. If the western world keeps on crediting themselves for the progress made, it makes them feel like they have done all the work and makes them feel better about themselves for doing such quality humanitarian work. Though humanitarian work is absolutely helpful, more note should be taken to the work being done by the people themselves. 
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 12 Oct 12
       
      This is an interesting point. Maybe instead of trying to emulate the suffering of Africans, we can talk about the power they possess. By empowering the population, by providing life-sustaining support but not expecting glory in return, and by identifying African citizens as capable citizens of the world instead of a helpless population reliant on our generosity, the world will gain a bigger respect for Africa and its citizens will tap into this unprecedented growth.
  • pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 11 Oct 12
       
      This really illustrates the majority of the college liberals who say they want to save africa, I think that if we just gave the same sympathy that we give to africa to the destitute in our own country then more people would help because it would  bring that same fame and self fulfillment as someone who is making a difference for someone.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 12 Oct 12
       
      I don't think that this statement is really appropriate for the author to say. I also think that if they are trying to help those that need help then that should be respected.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 12 Oct 12
       
      We already have a picture in our mind that Africa is not the safest place to live but of course blood usually sells over the good things that happen over there. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 12 Oct 12
       
      should it really matter what the motives are for people who are giving money and aid to Africa as long as it is helping and trying to make a difference?
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 12 Oct 12
       
      I don't think it should, but I think that what this author is trying to say is that people are trying to make a difference but it may not actually be helping the African cause.  However, this author is asking something of the media that they do not do in regards to other things besides Africa.  They don't ever report good things that people do, it's always about the bad, so the media isn't targeting Africa, they are targeting everything.
  • Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 12 Oct 12
       
      Just because parts of Africa are in poverty, doesn't mean that all areas are. Those people should still be acknowledged and recognized for the hard work they are doing. Some parts of Africa are actually capable of going far and are going to be very successful. People there still have the opportunity to make a change. 
  • News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 12 Oct 12
       
      I never really understood why news does this. Why do you focus on the negative? I feel like society has become increasingly negative. But the negativity makes sense because when things become frustrating you get discouraged and give up. There needs to be a balance between negative and positive. When there is positive it is up lifting and gives people hope. The news shouldn't focus on just negative because that contributes to the discouraging factor.
  • ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted "tribal markings" on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 12 Oct 12
       
      A classic ad company ploy..
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 12 Oct 12
       
      I like the last line, "we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth." It's nice to think about ourselves in that light, and its an optimistic picture for the future, but what are we actually accomplishing and what are we falling short on?? Words can only go so far, sorry to be sort of hypocritical, but action must be taken if change is your goal.
  • magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 12 Oct 12
       
      In some cases celebrities are using the struggles of people in Africa and their help they are giving them as a publicity stunt. 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 12 Oct 12
       
      Stuff like this bothers me. I am all for people wanting to help out in places that need it even if it is for self gratification and all of that. But the situations are much more complicated than the media leads people to believe. There are religious clashes in many of the central African countries and in the Northern African countries like Mali we are seeing Al-Qaeda and similar organizations set up Islamic radicalism. Feeding the poor and helping the people that are displaced by these things is not fixing the problem. And for the people who are saying the the US is just sending money to these countries and their 'corrupt dictators' is just wrong. We are trying to do much more than that. We have US Special Forces in many of these countries like Somalia, Mali, and many of the other central African countries. The US is putting some of our best soldiers in there to help the people. The media does not cover that part, they rather highlight the Pitt's and Clooney's. 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 12 Oct 12
       
      I think part of the reason we only hear about what celebrities are doing is because we feel more connected to them than to people we have never heard of. Because we feel connected to them, publicists feel that we are more likely to respond to pleas for help from people we feel more connected to. 
  • Africa doesn't want to be saved
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 12 Oct 12
       
      African citizens just want to be seen as individuals that are equal to us, who have simply been born into more difficult circumstances, as opposed to some diseased animal that can only survive out of the goodness of some person's heart.. it's very similar to people who are crippled and are treated as less than human. this is kind of a reminder that we need to treat everyone as equally human, because we don't know what they're going through, we just know that they're people who deserve their same God-given rights.
  • shane paulson on 05 Oct 11
     
    I completely agree with Felicia. The media is the greatest influence on why these celebrity figures are the ones being spotlighted for the force behind helping out Africa. I think in many ways it is the media attempting to save these reputations of celebrities in order to keep the population of readers and listeners interested. People tend to be drawn to stories that they are familiar with or that they can relate to.
  • Edmund Garrett on 12 Oct 12
     
    Well, I do agree it is nice to give aid to Africa and the reason does matter. People that simply give money just to have his or her name announced that they did so is not the morally correct reason. You should just give cuz it's the right thing to do but nevertheless I would not stop sending money because of ill reasons. The reasons don't matter that much. We are saving people and if the ends outweigh the means then who cares.
Lauren Frenkel

Questions for "Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise" - 14 views

I would have to agree with Tavish,patternicity allows the polis to place blame easily. It is felt that further research is not needed therefore false problems are created. lot of time and effort i...

started by Jacqueline Ramsay on 20 Oct 11 4 follow-ups, last by Lauren Frenkel on 21 Oct 11
Andrew Rothans

Science of Persuasion in the Courtroom Questions Nancy Camarillo - 23 views

Politicians do use persuasive tactics all the time to try to persuade a certain group of people. I dont believe it is unethical to persuade others, the politicians are just trying to give a certain...

started by Nancy Camarillo on 29 Nov 11 7 follow-ups, last by Andrew Rothans on 30 Nov 11
1 - 20 of 75 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page