Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ contemporary issues in public policy
Rss Feed
Sort By: Most Recent | Popular Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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.
elliott reyes

What Political Science can give to policy makers - The Monkey Cage - 4 views

themonkeycage.org/...what_political_science_can_giv

shared by elliott reyes on 15 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • The standard way of making a policy argument is to figure out the conclusion that you want to reach, find an argument to support that conclusion, and find a case (or, if you are extraordinarily ambitious, a couple of cases) that can be squeezed until it appears to support that argument
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 15 Oct 12
       
      This statement I believe is so true as the people involved in the debate are just responding to issues of how they think the people would want them to. They do not say what they truly want to and what they think is best for America. If they did what they thought was right and not worry about the voters, it would be quite refreshing and a nice change of pace of honesty.
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 16 Oct 12
       
      While I agree that some honesty from the politicians would be refreshing, it isn't realistic. Whenever politicians try to level with the American people, they seem to turn against them. They always claim to be tired of the lies told by politicians but they can't handle the truth themselves, no matter what party. When Obama said his infamous "you didn't build that" phrase, the American people went up and arms, when in reality not only was the statement distorted and taken out of context, it was very true. When Romney said his infamous 47% statement, the country again lost it, even though what he said (the numbers were way off and he could have said it in a logical way) was relatively true. And perhaps the most truthful politician of them all, Ron Paul. He isn't afraid to tell us the truth, whether it costs him the election or not. Known for his controversial statements, much of what Paul speaks about is factually accurate and honest. It just goes to show, when you try to level with the people of the United States, they can't take it. They'd much rather hear some other bs about how we're the only country that has freedom and liberty and other meaningless symbolic terms..
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Sahal. To ask politicians, who historically have been known to bend the truth and hide their lies, to be honest and open about their beliefs is almost impossible. Whether a politician is completely honest or not, it doesn't matter. In the end, as horrible as it is, Americans will vote for the one who is good at swaying citizens with his/her bs than actually telling the truth.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 17 Oct 12
       
      This is all sadly true. People often say they want "the truth", but more often than not, what they really want is validation for their already set ideals. Politicians know this, and they will take advantage of this. To be truthful in politics, at least to me, seems to be a gamble, not because of the morality, but because of the consequences it will ensue
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 17 Oct 12
       
      this is a very true statement given below I agree with Lauren honesty from politicians would be great since they manipulate things to their favor.
  • . Ideally, a grounding in selection effects would go hand-in-hand with quantitative training. But it doesn’t have to. Th
  • Ideally, a grounding in selection effects would go hand-in-hand with quantitative training. But it doesn’t have to. The basic logic applies equally happily to qualitative data too.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • I think (and the written comments on my teaching evaluations to date reflect this) that they get a lot from the more methodologically focused parts of the course.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 17 Oct 12
       
      This is my first political science class I have taken outside of AP government in high school (which I don't know if that really counts). A lot of what we discuss is about opinion and exercising our brains help us form our own opinions by assessing multiple perspectives. For people studying international affairs and political science in graduate study, it seems that it would be important to focus on the methodology to how the best policies are produced, not based on the sole opinions of what people assume people want. Playing off of an idea presented by Mickey Edwards from the conference, policies are created by representatives who can't relate to the people they are supposed to represent because methodology of policymaking is pushed the wayside and it is more about who gets what votes, not what the people want. Things get much trickier, I am sure, when it comes to international affairs because we are working with people who's opinions and best interests we don't understand and we try to implement our personal beliefs on a nation that does not align ideologically with the US. If we focused on the methodology and used the quantitative facts of how to go about these affairs, the opinions about what is best would be less polarized and it would create more of a standard to which representatives and officials carry out policies. 
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 17 Oct 12
       
      I would agree that it has to be hard to present an argument that gets at the idea of why this way of doing things is so wrong, and how can we enable people to choose a better way to make their arguments?
  • Emily Shandorf on 17 Oct 12
     
    Is it that hard to be honest and persuade people at the same time? "Social Science offers extremely useful skills for making sense of the world". More people should use them and stop changing their ideas every time there is a problem. Therefore you should confront the problem.
Kevin Olive

Embrace the Wonk : CJR - 1 views

www.cjr.org/...embrace_the_wonk_1.php

shared by Kevin Olive on 17 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • But they’re not often looking to it for inspiration, either. Diligent reporters may turn to political scientists for a useful primer on a new beat;
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 17 Oct 12
       
      This is funny and true. So many people hate politics and believe that politicians are evil and corrupt. Because political scientists are educated in their field some seek insight. but according to this article most dont. Reporters use several opinions to find their true story. Just interesting how controversial political science is as a whole
  • Political scientists aren’t going to like this book, because it portrays politics as it is actually lived by the candidates, their staff and the press, which is to say—a messy, sweaty, ugly, arduous competition between flawed human beings—a universe away from numbers and probabilities and theories
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 17 Oct 12
       
      I would probably pretty angry as a political scientist at this mark as well. It definitely gives them a bad name and confirms fears of the public that so much goes on in private that we dont knnow about and is shady.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 17 Oct 12
       
      I think that statement although it probably is going to irritate some political scientists but none the less is true. Politics lived by the candidates is hard work and a cutthroat competition. Any weakness or flaw in a candidate will be exposed by either his opponent or the media.
Brandon Weger

Embrace the Wonk : CJR - 0 views

www.cjr.org/...embrace_the_wonk_1.php

shared by Brandon Weger on 17 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • while not questioning that a president’s effectiveness matters, suggests that the occupant of the Oval Office is, in many ways, a prisoner of circumstance. His approval ratings—and re-election prospects—rise and fall with the economy. His agenda lives or dies on Capitol Hill. And his ability to move Congress, or the public, with a good speech or a savvy messaging strategy is, while not nonexistent, sharply constrained.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 17 Oct 12
       
      This is very true. Many people are not patient enough to take the time to understand that the government is much more than just the President making decisions. There is a whole system, a complex one at that. But one of the biggest downsides of being the visible authority figure is that you provide people with a face to place blame on. I'm not saying that presidents are perfect (hahaha no) but more often than not, they are used as scapegoats for problems that most likely had far more components than just "he didn't make the right decision".
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree with Karina, many people almost subconsciously convince themselves that anything that goes wrong is directly the President's fault. It is easier for us to point the finger, than to go out an educate oneself with the full story, and who is truly at fault and responsible. The government is much larger than we remember, there are plenty of people to blame besides the one man in the big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Kelsey Fratello

Embrace the Wonk : CJR - 0 views

www.cjr.org/...embrace_the_wonk_1.php

shared by Kelsey Fratello on 15 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • But even in day-to-day coverage, a poli-sci perspective can have value in helping reporters make choices about which storylines, and which nuggets of information, really matter
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 15 Oct 12
       
      I believe this needs to be done as the people need to be taught in depth about the issues at hand, not just the tid bits of informatin that then they have to rely on to make decisions, but if political scientist establish their prespectives and everything, I believe it would be beneficial for everyone. The political scientists can really point out the important issues instead of just glancing over them for the people to be more in the know in order to really help this country.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 17 Oct 12
       
      i agree that small pieces of information are being used when the whole story or full knowledge of the story isn't known. i also believe that a poli-sci input would be significant to helping this problem. 
    • Kati Miller
      Kati Miller on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree. It is apparent in news today that reporters relay their reports from an entertainment and profit-based perspective, rather than focusing on the importance of true political science. If journalists reported ploi-sci based information, the public would be better served factual information, and perhaps the norm of basing bias and opinion on superficial and irrelevant factors would begin to deminish.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 17 Oct 12
       
      I think that at least part of the problem is that news reporters are trying to get more viewers, and as such they report in the way which they think will be most entertaining and intriguing to the public as a whole. They seem to have a fairly low view of the public, and so they give us just little snippets of news and interesting, relatable stories, but they don't give us many big picture facts or poli-sci based info.
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree that news reporters need to focus on the importance of political science. They need to be the means by which people can understand the issues at hand that are most important. People rely on the reporters to make them fully aware of things that are going on, and if reporters are just focusing on the entertaining facts, then they are doing a disservice to their audience. We as a people need to be aware of the problems that are going on in the political world; so if reporters stick to helping us understand them, then it will help this country to progress.
Cameron Schroeck

Home - 0 views

www.kadytv.com/home

shared by Cameron Schroeck on 17 Oct 12 - No Cached
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 17 Oct 12
       
      I agree with the man on the right. It is so easy for people to label all politicians as polarized party members who simply do not cooperate with the other party. This can be a result of increased ignorance in the population as the desire to achieve political education has decreased over the years. Thus, one simply says that all politicians only work for themselves. 
Hayley Jensen

Digital Cities: 'sense-able' urban design (Wired UK) - 3 views

www.wired.co.uk/...cities-sense-able-urban-design

shared by Hayley Jensen on 12 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Sensors, cameras and microcontrollers are used ever more extensively to manage city infrastructure, optimise transportation, monitor the environment and run security applications
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 12 Oct 12
       
      But there are serious drawbacks to this. We pay with our privacy for the ability to having everything mechanized and fine-tuned to our convenience. How much of an invasion does this end up being?
  • gina Hogrefe on 13 Oct 12
     
    This article reminded me of the movie The 5th Element. Because of the technological and science fiction imagery being portrayed by the author. It is going to be interesting to see if this technology is going to have adverse effects Iike the Unabomber's manifesto.
Benjamin Chavez II

Moral Psychology (TED talk) - 0 views

www.americaispurple.com/?p=64

shared by Benjamin Chavez II on 10 Oct 12 - No Cached
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 10 Oct 12
       
      When Haidt first began his speech he sounded extremely biased, which was both arresting and irritating, since Ted Talks are generally open-minded. But then he continued on and made some very interesting points which I thought were smartly objective and important for all to understand. It is true that no man ever thinks, once he's made up his mind about something, that he is in the wrong. It takes reason and respect, and moreso the ability to understand their moral psychology, to convince them otherwise. And even then, we all must be open to realizing that we may not be completely in the right ourselves, and that when a collective effort is made to contribute our differentiating positions to society, we can better find a relative medium.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 10 Oct 12
       
      Yeah didnt like this video, sure republicans are more closed minded but democrats are free o anything. No one but you can say if one is right or wrong. Video was bias. Either way each party should have respect for the other.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Oct 12
       
      I really loved the "first draft" thing. I think it really shows how culture and society influences, but not necessarily implants, ideologies and perspectives.  The question of "what is moral" is much more complicated than it seems.
    • Benjamin Chavez II
      Benjamin Chavez II on 10 Oct 12
       
      All in all it was a pretty good TED talk.  He kept me interested in the beginning with some of the jokes and powerpoint slides but started losing me when was trying to make his point at the end.  One thing I found very interesting though was when he quoted Sent-ts'an.  Sent-ts'an said, "The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease". That is so true and sadly there is no escape from this "disease". But by thinking that way for a second, Haidt says that we can "step out of the moral matrix" and change the world for the better by giving others opinions a chance at being right.
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.
Dana Sacca

ThickCulture » A multidisciplinary blog about public discourse, multicultural... - 1 views

thesocietypages.org/thickculture

shared by Dana Sacca on 03 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Then the candidate makes truly vile remarks questioning the President’s patriotism during an on-going attack on American personnel
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 03 Oct 12
       
      I don't understand why it is necessary for candidates to bash each other. They each have different views, they each have different voters, I don't see the need to have to bash on another candidate to gain voters. If anything that would make me not want to vote for them.
Amanda Garcia

What Makes Us Happy? - Joshua Wolf Shenk - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...307439

shared by Amanda Garcia on 21 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Your wife had a cancer scare
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 21 Sep 12
       
      Why does it have to be from a guys point of view?
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 23 Sep 12
       
      It doesn't. You could easily switch the POV if you wanted to.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 24 Sep 12
       
      why does it have to be from a guys point of view someone answer
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 24 Sep 12
       
      it could be from a womans point of view, a woman with a wife.
    • Carissa Faulk
      Carissa Faulk on 24 Sep 12
       
      The study is from a man's point of view (as all of the people studied were male). So of course the case they are sighting will be from a man's point of view.
  • funders expect results quickly
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 21 Sep 12
       
      Impatient
  • From their days of bull sessions in Cambridge to their active duty in World War II, through marriages and divorces, professional advancement and collapse—and now well into retirement—the men have submitted to regular medical exams, taken psychological tests, returned questionnaires, and sat for interviews
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 22 Sep 12
       
      This sounds like a science ficiton movie that is to come in the near future... It also seems that this is an interesting study, but time consuming to the point where the researcher, themselves, do not have a life of their own.
    • jeffrey hernandez
      jeffrey hernandez on 24 Sep 12
       
      I agree, it also seems like an awful amount of research, just to find the secrets of the good life. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 24 Sep 12
       
      I wonder if anyone got paid from this study
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 24 Sep 12
       
      But to everyone, the 'good life' is different. So, it is probable that the researchers were performing all of these methods of research to explore every possibility there is to achieve the 'good life'. Plus, it seems like finding the secrets of the 'good life' is like finding the meaning of life. There are so many things and paths to take until one discovers all the secrets to what he/she were looking for.
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 24 Sep 12
       
      I definitely agree with Shannon. We are raised in a world where we create and find our own ideas, especially when it comes to happiness. We have our own opinions on what it means to have a great life and to be happy with it.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 24 Sep 12
       
      This article was so interesting to me because he got to really understand so many life stories. There is no way of really understanding happiness unless you are a fly on the wall and you are able to see the end result from all the ups and downs that life throws at us. When I think about what makes people happy I do agree with his main conclusion but I also understand and agree with some of my peers that the "good life" is different for everyone. With that being said I wonder how we can alter public policy to facilitate peoples road to happiness based on the findings from this study,
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • He defined normal as “that combination of sentiments and physiological factors which in toto is commonly interpreted as successful living.”
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 22 Sep 12
       
      I don't think there is such a thing as "normal". There is no true definition. To one person, "normal" may mean something completely different than another person's definition. We may look at "normal" as a way everybody should think or act, however, what is "normal"?? I think everyone has different opinions of what "normal" is. 
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 22 Sep 12
       
      This also applies to people that think they are "weird". To some "weird" has become the new "normal". It's all relative and depends on perspective.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 22 Sep 12
       
      I agree with that above that normal cannot be defined. People are different in their ways and in their views. The view of being normal is all about perception and who has the right to say who is normal and who is not. Being normal is all about the point of view.
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 23 Sep 12
       
      I disagree with the statement that normal is considered the common term for successful living. So is everyone who is successful normal? Steve Jobs was very successful, but I don't think wearing a black turtle neck and jeans every day would be the common definition of normal apparel. Normality is a matter of self perception and everyone lives by their own standards. Thus, I don't think that there can be a uniform definition of the term "normal."  
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 23 Sep 12
       
      I agree with previous comments that normality depends on the point of view. What someone may think is normal others may think its weird. To define normal would have to include that it changes for different people. This definition does not include that. In response to Cameron, I totally agree. For the most part successful people arent the "normal" ones. To become successful one must try something new and think outside of the box. Most successful people were deemed crazy in the first stages of their development. For example when Walt Disney started Disneyland in the middle of orange groves, people thought he was wasting his time and money. Now Disneyland is a would renowned theme park.
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 24 Sep 12
       
      I also agree with Cameron that there isn't a "uniform definition of the term 'normal'". We all have our own ways of determining what we feel is "normal"; but that's the thing, it's our own opinion. I do think it was good that they included what their definition of "normal" was so that we could see the type of males they used in their study. If they left this little detail out, I think this issue of "normal" would have become a bigger deal than the study. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 24 Sep 12
       
      But can't "normal" also be a blanket term for "socially common"? While I do agree that normality is very much based on perspective from person to person, I would think for the sake of this article, "normal" would define that which is common and regularly occurring. I don't know maybe that's just me.
  • Exhaustive medical exams noted everything from major organ function, to the measure of lactic acid after five minutes on a treadmill, to the size of the “lip seam” and the hanging length of the scrotum. Using a new test called the electroencephalograph, the study measured the electrical activity in the brain, and sought to deduce character from the squiggles.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 23 Sep 12
       
      This is an extremely detailed research and I wonder what all of these small aspects have to do with the overall purpose about happiness.
    • Edmund Garrett
      Edmund Garrett on 23 Sep 12
       
      Yes it is interesting, in which they try to scientifically or almost mathematically define human emotion. For happiness is a human emotion such as love. And for many years I have believed that those things can not be defined by numbers.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 24 Sep 12
       
      It's a little ridiculous in my opinion to do such thorough research about pursuing happiness and determining the length of life. A person who could get nothing to everything wouldn't be happy if they are empty inside. I believe love and the people around you in your life make happiness. Also your own ability to be willing to achieve happiness and well-being. Those I believe are the main factors to true life-long happiness.
  • measured them from every conceivable angle and with every available scientific tool.
    • Devin Milligan
      Devin Milligan on 24 Sep 12
       
      I don't think you can really measure someones happiness with scientific tools and with data. How do you measure happiness with tools?
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 24 Sep 12
       
      You would have to set a standard of happiness in order to measure it. Every person would have a different criteria that would measure their happiness.
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 24 Sep 12
       
      Is there a scientific tool to measure happiness? Do you Really need so many people to find out if someone is happy? Why not just ask the test group if they are happy or not? This seems like an extensive study to find out something seemingly simple.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 24 Sep 12
       
      I suppose you could use certain methods or questions to determine someones level or happiness. simply asking them if there happy or not wouldn't help because like many of us when were asked how were doing we say good (even if were bad). I agree with all of you though, scientific tools do seem silly and inaccurate.
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 24 Sep 12
       
      Its hard to measure someones happiness in general. Everyone is different, there is no real defined method.
  • , a kind of whole-body phrenology based on the premise that stock character types could be seen from body proportions
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 24 Sep 12
       
      It seems that they could judge these men's overall happiness through their physical appearance as well. This really is an intense breakdown of the body physically to see if it is possible to judge joy through purely the body
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 24 Sep 12
       
      I also think that this is an odd way to test a man's happiness considering even the most unattractive man can find happiness through other ways besides their looks. 
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 24 Sep 12
       
      i like the direction of the video how he talks about why getting old isn't as scary as everyone thinks it is.  That being old can be just as much but different fun as being young.  I cant say that after this I am looking forward to being 60 but I can say that I can understand not wanting to be sitting there thinking about how boring it is when the time comes but rather find the little things in life that really make you happy.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 24 Sep 12
       
      I think that a lot of people are scared about getting old, mostly because they are afraid of the challenges that it may present, it's another thing in the world of the unknown... and thats one of the scariest things in the world in my opinion. I think that we just forget that life can still be a lot of fun when you get older
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 24 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Brandon. People are generally scared of getting older because they assume that it means that they won't be able to do everything they can do now. To an extent that's true, but there is still a lot you can do at an older age. 
  • wn life has been so woven into the study—and the study has become such a creature of his mind—that neit
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 24 Sep 12
       
      I think this is kind of interesting. The fact that he gave so much of his life to study others life it seems like a little bit of a waste, even if it is for science.
  • dividing the body up into symptoms and diseases—and viewing it through the lenses of a hundred micro-specialties—could never shed light on the urgent question of how, on the whole, to live well
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 24 Sep 12
       
      I love this idea of studying how to maintain happiness. Much emphasis is put on mental "sickness" or and there seems to be a negative stigma associated with that. Yes, some people fall into illness because of uncontrollable cause, and require therapy. Therefore, seeing a therapist means that there is something wrong with you to where you can't deal with your problems yourself. The idea of focusing more so on helping people maintain happiness and good standing in their lives is almost common sense. Prevention is key. Giving people tools to succeed is essential to the well being of someones life. Of course you can argue that people learn from their mistakes and from getting up after they have been knocked down. That is just life. I personally feel that many times, people are guessing in life and there is no clear cut path. By focusing on how to live well, could potentially shape society in good ways. There is no right way to live well, but if everyone is on the pursuit of their own happiness, overall we might live in a more accepting and fluid society.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 24 Sep 12
       
      i find it interesting that the guy who created this foundation had like no life outside of his foundation life.  It is like his personal life and his life with the foundation merged ad only created one life.
  • They stripped naked so that every dimension of their bodies could be measured for “anthropometric” analysis
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 25 Sep 12
       
      It makes me wonder if this at all changed how the men in the study lived out their lives, and if they would have done anything differently had they not been a part of it. It had to have affected them in someway, knowing that they would be analysed and evaluated throughout their entire lives. That is no normal way to live. And so it would seem to me that no truly normal conclusions could be drawn. They would at the very least be askew and affected.  
  • gina Hogrefe on 23 Sep 12
     
    What I got out of this longitude study "What Makes us Happy" article is that happiness comes not from tangibles but the non-tangibles in our lives.
  • Carissa Faulk on 24 Sep 12
     
    I find it interesting that they would put so much effort into discovering the secrets to the "good life" when the very definition of that phrase will change depending on who you ask, and the methods of obtaining the good life will be different depending on what it is you want from life.
Caitlin Scott

What Makes Us Happy? - Joshua Wolf Shenk - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...2

shared by Caitlin Scott on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • And then what happened? You married, and took a posting overseas. You started smoking and drinking. In 1951—you were 31—you wrote, “I think the most important element that has emerged in my own psychic picture is a fuller realization of my own hostilities.
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 24 Sep 12
       
      I feel that the "good life" that the subject had earlier on in this case study is what set him up for such a troubled life beyond college. Having your early years be nothing but pure bliss (or as it seems in this study) did not prepare the subject for any type of adversity later on in life. Personally, I think people need to suffer some type of troubles in their lives in order to understand what "happiness" truly is. One reaches happiness when they can overcome such struggles and become more well-rounded individuals as a result. When someone who is rich their entire lives loses all of their money, they will be far fetched to return back to the top. But someone who has experience in such difficulty suffers financial hardship, they are more equipped (experienced?) to handle such a situation. So as odd as it sounds, adversity breeds success.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 24 Sep 12
       
      I totally agree with you Brandon.  Also, to add to your point sometimes when you have hit the lowest of lows you appreciate any point that is better than that and maybe achieving the point where you were initially is not as important as recognizing the important aspects of how you were at the top in the first place.  Its more important to identify the reasons that you believed you were successful in the first place then to try to get back to the top by any means possible.  
  • Arlie Bock had gone looking for binary conclusions—yeses and nos, dos and don’ts.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 24 Sep 12
       
      This is a rather lofty expectation that Bock had of this study. This could be an influence of the rigid society of the first part of the 20th century. Life is not black and white. Happiness is not one way or another. Happiness, among many other emotions, resonates between good and bad, twisted and angelic. Happiness can be defined universally. Ways of attaining happiness is infinite and relative. 
  • “Dad, I just don’t know what I’ll do with this watch. It’s so fragile. It could break.” The other boy runs to him and says, “Daddy! Daddy! Santa left me a pony, if only I can just find it!”
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 24 Sep 12
       
      This is a clear example that speaks to happiness coming in different forms for different people.
Ryan Hamilton

What Makes Us Happy? - Joshua Wolf Shenk - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...4

shared by Ryan Hamilton on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • But you said your parents’ divorce was “just like in the movies,” and that you someday “would like to have some marital difficulties” of your own.
    • Tori Mayeda
      Tori Mayeda on 24 Sep 12
       
      why would anyone want to have marital difficulties? Most relationships run into problems but it sounds like they are hoping for them!  
  • the key to the good life
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 24 Sep 12
       
      I found this article insanely interesting, but also a little disconcerting. The men interviewed and followed all started above average, and yet we see that most of them (at least the ones outlined in this article) had major personal issues in their life; not issues such as an important person's death, but that they had legitimate psychological issues. The ending could've wrapped up a little better what the moral of the story is from all these years of research, but I guess it's all right that they leave it on us to gleam from it what we will. 
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 24 Sep 12
       
      Yeah I agree, maybe the moral of the story is that even with all of this data we might not be able to really know what leads to a 'good life'. But by looking at the stories from the people involved you can see how they either grew or fell from their experiences and maybe in that we can glean a little something about what leads to a good long life.
Caitlin Fransen

What Makes Us Happy? - Joshua Wolf Shenk - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...307439

shared by Caitlin Fransen on 23 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • “What have you learned from the Grant Study men?” Vaillant’s response: “That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 23 Sep 12
       
      I wonder how this research would have been better if they tested females as well.
  • Bock declared that medical research paid too much attention to sick people; that dividing the body up into symptoms and diseases—and viewing it through the lenses of a hundred micro-specialties—could never shed light on the urgent question of how, on the whole, to live well. His study would draw on undergraduates who could “paddle their own canoe,” Bock said, and it would “attempt to analyze the forces that have produced normal young men.”
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 24 Sep 12
       
      interesting to think about it in that way, we study all the sickness and diseases, but why not look at in a different way? how do we live well? sickness may give us some clues, but there are other ways to look at it and discover how to live well
    • Emily Shandorf
      Emily Shandorf on 24 Sep 12
       
      it takes time and it is exausted to do these studies in a depth way. This shows a lot of intrest concerning the body and the sympthoms/diseases. But why only male were tested and studied? I think they could have chosen also a different point of view also by choosing females. It might give them different resolts from the male, to then compare to each other and come out with a better solution or idea.
Kim H

What Makes Us Happy? - Joshua Wolf Shenk - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...3

shared by Kim H on 23 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • If you follow lives long enough, the risk factors for healthy life adjustment change
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 23 Sep 12
       
      This makes perfect sense to me. As we age, different things take priority in our lives and it's good to realize this and adjust accordingly. 
Caitlin Scott

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/readings/rawl_justice.pdf - 2 views

www2.econ.iastate.edu/...rawl_justice.pdf

shared by Caitlin Scott on 13 Sep 12 - No Cached
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 13 Sep 12
       
      So Rawl believes that their will be inequalities socially and economically in a just society, but everyone deserves to have a chance to climb socially/economically? Or does everyone have the same advantage? How is this different from Nozick?
    • Cameron Schroeck
      Cameron Schroeck on 13 Sep 12
       
      True, everyone deserves a chance to climb the social and economic ladders, and I would have to agree with Rawl. By contrast, Nozick's belief in natural hierarchy and everyone is sorted into social classes. However, I would have to agree with Rawl. I think that those who are in the lower ranks of the economic and social scale should be given a degree of extra attention. I believe this gives more equality as it helps to better incorporate the lower classes to a higher standard of living that everyone should be entitled to.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 14 Sep 12
       
      I have to agree.  Of course, the "natural hierarchy", I think, is just another way of pointing out how often we as humans are biased.  At some point in time, there is always a group (be it a marginalized sex, ethnicity, or orientation) that is discriminated, whether blatantly or discreetly.  Of course this is not to say that equality should stop being pursued, that is something that people should always strive for. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 14 Sep 12
       
      I think that as humans we will always create a some kind of hierarchy. We all would like to believe that we are all created equal but in most cases this is not true. Although this does not mean that we can not work to close any gaps between in society.
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 14 Sep 12
       
      I feel like he is saying that we cannot live in a society where "we can have it all." We must give up certain fundamental rights because not everyone is equal, socially or economically, and that's not fair.  Has this guy never heard of the expression, life isn't fair?  I am all for people helping out the underprivileged, but how about letting it be just that? People helping people, not some corrupt holier than thou politician in big government deciding what is "fair" and what is an equal distribution of rights and money. This ideology is setting people up to look like villains if they disagree with it. 
  • Emily Shandorf on 14 Sep 12
     
    It was really hard to fully understand what the authors two main points are. I interpret the statement "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others" as the author basically saying that everyone deserves the same rights and opportunities as others. His second point, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage; and b) attached to positions and offices open to all" is very hard to understand the point he is trying to make, or even what his line of thought is for this. If mentioning these two main points was suppose to be some sort of thesis or preview of what the rest of the article is about then it did a very poor job of making it clear and concise.
Sarah Marroquin

Joanna Moorhead on the best country to give birth | Life and style | The Guardian - 0 views

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

shared by Sarah Marroquin on 13 Sep 12 - Cached
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 13 Sep 12
       
      If Sweden is a perfect place for having children, and under the assumption that other wealthy countries have the technology to attain the same results; then why has our birth rate gone down in recent years?
elliott reyes

Chimp Fights and Trolley Rides - Radiolab - 13 views

www.radiolab.org/...chimp-fights-and-trolley-rides

shared by elliott reyes on 07 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • "inner chimp"
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 07 Sep 12
       
      My inner chimps name is bubbles?
  • waitin
    • jose marichal
      jose marichal on 07 Sep 12
       
      i disagree
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 08 Sep 12
       
      That's really interesting! In highshcool, I only heard the first 5 minutes of this, but to hear about the stuff like how the brain uses different regions to say yes or no was interesting! The whole psychology aspect of this is really cool.
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • Ashley Mehrens
      Ashley Mehrens on 09 Sep 12
       
      I found that it was very interesting how quickly they dismissed the idea that parents instill some of the qualities into their children. In my opinion someone has to stimulate the children to succumb to the evolutionary inner chimp. Even though when the younger chimps couldn't decide who got the branch, then the older ones had to intervene and teach them how to properly act. In the same way parents intervene when their child can't seem to figure out the proper way to share during their play date. The evolutionary aspect seems to be proven fairly well but from previous knowledge we all know that from birth we do not have that innate sense of right and wrong. Your inner chimp has to grow and mature before being able to sense right and wrong. 
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Sep 12
       
      Exactly. What kind of environment one grows up and, and the types of influences one gains throughout one's life should be able to play a big factor in how they act. We learn these things.
    • Amanda Garcia
      Amanda Garcia on 10 Sep 12
       
      I thought it was great how they took an incredibly abstract concept such as morality and put it to the scientific test. It suggests that morality may be instilled according to upbringing and environment but is inherently biological. It takes what is generally considered to be subjective and makes it predictable within our species (with a few outliers), for reasons we can't even quite understand. Which means that evolution dictates many of our ideas of right and wrong. 
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 10 Sep 12
       
      I thought it was interesting that when the brain was looked at when asked the trolley questions that so much changed and different parts started to light up. How people saw the two deaths a different when they had to ask themselves about "personally killing" someone versus just pulling the switch
    • khampton44
      khampton44 on 10 Sep 12
       
      The brain really battles itself and really shows how people get to what is right and what is wrong can be more than just moral ,but biological as well.
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 10 Sep 12
       
      To me personally i found it interesting that the two trolley stories both ended with someone being killed, but the what one person had to do were on the opposite ends. Its fascinating to see how when ask which option they would chose most people said pulling the lever even though it still ended in the same result which is a death of one person. I agree in the statement above that the brain when making decisions is not only based on morals but also biological. To me the fact that our morality might not have come from they way us humans grow up and our surroundings but instead from our basic inner chimp bring forth the question of if our morals play any part of decision making.
  • The most interesting possibility is that the brain may have more than one way to handle complex decisions. I'd have to say that at this point science can't say much beyond that when it comes to morality and ethics. Morality and ethics are constructs we come up with to try and put some order into personal actions both on an inter-personal level and in larger groups and societies as a whole.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 12 Sep 12
       
      kjsdfwbfwefndfad
  • Emily Shandorf on 09 Sep 12
     
    If found interesting the fact that people don't feel as shamed of pulling a lever to save five people and kill one instead of pushing the person over the train. The people in the interview think that pulling a lever is better because they wouldn't feel as much guilt as pushing the person down from the trolley. Even if we all know that both are not great solutions. The gut feeling called as "inner chimp" I like how they say that moral sense is a unique and special human quality. Maybe we should ask ourselves what it really is. How the human brain works of different people is also very interesting I find because many people think differently and are ashamed of what other people think or would choose. Out of competition comes morality. We already have a sense of right and wrong when we are born, even before our parents can tell us. Basic primate morality understands the effect of pushing a person off, in this case, the trolley. The "inner chimp", which is "act of deep goodness". this is all connected to the 10 commandments, especially the one "thou shall not kill " Everything is always for a reason. Same story Killing your own baby or saving a village. I find it interesting how people would choose to kill their own baby and therefore save themselves and the rest of the people who live in the village. Others instead are very contrary because they say that a baby is God's gift. Everything now can evolve around having the inner strength for doing things like killing your own baby. I wonder if people that say that they would kill their own baby have actually the inner strength to do it. Actions speak louder than words. I think that it is also different when you have to decide to kill your own baby or save a village especially when you don't have one because you don't really know how it feels to be a parent and have a gift from God that not everyone can rece
Caitlin Fransen

The emerging moral psychology - 7 views

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...theemergingmoralpsychology

shared by Caitlin Fransen on 09 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • cognitive conflict
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 09 Sep 12
       
      There is probably a point of cognitive dissonance as well. When you are under this much pressure to save the five people, though you know in your mind it's wrong you may end up pushing the heavy man out of anticipation (or vice versa). I feel like it's hard to really know how people will react because the scientists never factored in the idea of cognitive dissonance. 
  • Morality is a social phenomenon, and so it is little surprise that the way our social lives are structured—whether we live in small, tight-knit communities or large, anonymous cities—also sculpts our moral outlook. Haidt suggests that it is no coincidence that rural areas of the US, where communities are more bound together and interdependent, tend to be more conservative and religious, while urban dwellers tend to be more secular and liberal, with a focus on “individualising” ethics (see below).
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 09 Sep 12
       
      Coming from a small closely-knit community, I have recognized that the rural areas are more group-oriented and mutually dependent on each other.  They rely on each other for support: emotionally, economically, and morally. They are responsible to each other. While in urban communities, others want to be more individualistic and focus on there rights. They are focused on the well-being of themselves.  
    • Ryan Hamilton
      Ryan Hamilton on 10 Sep 12
       
      This is pretty interesting to me and reminds me of a question that was asked in a class a few years ago: "Are we born inherently evil or good?" This one is a little different in that it asks if we are born knowing what is right and what is wrong.  I might be in a minority, but I generally disagree with the premise that we as humans are hardwired and born with a moral compass of sorts. I believe all of that comes from the experiences that we have had growing up and continues until the day that we die.  Near the end of the article it is pointed out the difference in moral views that people have from a political standpoint. These viewpoints are things that are developed over time and with every experience we have had. People that are born in a specific religious family will generally be that specific religion as they grow up. I am not sure you are born 'believing' in that religion. Same with morality, experiences may shape it and it may evolve over time. Maybe at one time you feel pushing the large man in the tracks would be a rational thing to do and maybe as you grow older and have experienced death on a personal level you would have a much tougher time deciding on the morality of that same decision. That is why asking people if they would flip the switch and/or if they would push someone physically on the tracks seems like it may not fully prove that we are inherently born with knowing something is 'wrong' because the people that are asked have had experiences that might mold their decisions.  Obviously asking someone that has been isolated from everything for their entire lives is not realistic and therefore making this sort of idea hard to answer definitively, which in turn will make it a hotly debated topic between people with different views.
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • sahalfarah
      sahalfarah on 10 Sep 12
       
      I found this quote interesting because it tries to get you to think about what you consider morally correct and incorrect. In a way, I think it answers the previous questions about the supposed "harmless" acts. 
    • Alexa Datuin
      Alexa Datuin on 10 Sep 12
       
      A lot of issues concerning morality are almost always based on what we've been through - our experiences. It goes along with "learning from our mistakes." People tend to trust those who have more experience with a certain problem, or those who have been through it before. The argument of saying that "I just know it's wrong," is not a good enough answer brings up the question of what makes it good enough? Scientists who think logically and need proof have to realize that a lot of what makes the "rules of life" were made from what we realized what was wrong, because of what was felt, what was thought, and or what was said at the time.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 10 Sep 12
       
      I completely agree with Alexa when she commented that "People tend to trust those who have more experience with a certain problem, or those who have been through it before." especially pertaining to when the article said, "In a separate study which asked subjects for their ethical views on consensual incest, most people intuitively felt that incestuous sex is wrong, but when asked why, many gave up, saying, "I just know it's wrong!"-a phenomenon Haidt calls "moral dumbfounding."" When people respond with "I just know, it's wrong!" it's possible that they grew up in a community that proclaimed that incest was wrong without any reason stating otherwise. Or what Alexa mentioned, when people are asked why something is the way it is, they usually go off from what people have told them, they have a trust in that what they learned from elders who are more experienced than them, is true.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 10 Sep 12
       
      But what about when one actually HAS to make these decisions? When you are actually there, what will your response be? Realistically speaking, you would only have maybe a few seconds to make that decision, and I highly doubt someone would mull the moral ups and downs before making a rash action. As it says further down in the article, I think it also has to do with how intimate and personal the situation becomes. With the lever, you can distance yourself, in your mind, tell yourself the train killed the person, not you. Chances are that if a person was in that sort of situation with under 5 seconds to think, it would be much easier to pull the lever and tell yourself you had no choice. Pushing someone, however, would make it YOUR fault. YOU would be responsible for this person's death, and chances are you'd be the last thing they see. Which is why I find this article so interesting. Its fascinating how putting a middle man in a situation can completely change a point of view or outcome. 
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 10 Sep 12
       
      I find this article interesting, but a little structured. Moral obligation is embedded in everyone. Moral decisions are made by a moral compass, which is influenced by the surrounding of an individual. The problem with this study is structure. The event that is taking place is highly unlikely, the study does not stress the influence of a timed decision. 
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 10 Sep 12
       
       Time has to be the most powerful factor within the study. Time is valued differently based on customs and cultural. 
    • Caitlin Fransen
      Caitlin Fransen on 10 Sep 12
       
      It is crazy the way our institutions have caused our way of thinking to develop. a lot of what students learn in school becomes what they believe because of the schools influence and they also in some cases know no different.  
  • Brandon White on 10 Sep 12
     
    I discussed this ethical scenario in depth last semester in my American Political Thought Class. The idea is: Is it ethical to harm one person in the act of saving another? We as humans tend to think these scenarios over all the time. Even at parties, we often entertain ourselves with silly "Would you rather?" questions. The thought is: What makes us reach such conclusions? To me, it seems people reach such conclusions based on the experiences they have had throughout their lives. I agree with the poster above me in the sense that we are not "hardwired" with a sense of moral knowledge. I feel we derive our own morality in decision making based on our own upbringing and lived experiences. For example, I grew up with parents whom were both police officers. From birth, I had my sense of morality influenced by their want to see me follow the law and be respectful to authority. Although I am now an adult, I still feel their parenting has installed a set of values that determines what I view morally right and wrong. I hate people who text and drive, and where do I get such a judgement? From my parents. Now, if I had parents whom texted while driving I most likely would have a different view on the subject. In conclusion, our own so-called moral compass comes from the own circumstance in which we are brought into the world. A boy growing up in Bel Air with rich parents will obviously have a different sense of morality regarding assisting the poor than someone born to more frugal parents. Although the concept of men being born equal can still be held as true, it is the culture that we are brought into that ultimately determines our fate.
Brandon White

Best content in contemporary issues in public policy | Diigo - Groups - 0 views

groups.diigo.com/...porary-issues-in-public-policy

shared by Brandon White on 10 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • I believe all of that comes from the experiences that we have had growing up and continues until the day that we die. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 10 Sep 12
       
      I agree with this wholeheartedly. I talk about this in my post as well. Our sense of morals come from our own upbringing, not from some magnificent force that gives us moral judgement from birth. 
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 67 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page