| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
 Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not talking about exceptions Romana, I'm specifically talking about probabilities and generalities and the like. I'm not sitting here saying that just because I was raised in low income neighborhoods that it means I can't talk to an intelligent person like you, or that Einstein never existed.
Being intellectual doesn't necessarily include an intense valuing of intelligence or 'thriving' on intellecual pursuits. It just describes someone who is smart, educated and rational. Intellectuals don't always start off as such before education. Education tends to make a person an intellectual. Poor people are less likely, percentage wise, to take advantage of higher educations. You're mostly right that there are more of them in college because there are more middle class and working class folks, but you seem to be missing out on all the other people. Ya know? That huge percentage that isn't of the same calibur. And since the middle and lower classes form the majorities of our societies, then it is safe to assume that they are getting the short end of the opportunity stick. Why are you trying to say that being poor means anything else besides less opportunity?
If I was contrasting workers and intellectuals, it probably revolved around what I've been saying the whole time: the lower classes tend to have a lower predisposition towards educational activity. Workers do tend to not come from wealth, and intellectualism tends to revolve around wealth. The best schools aren't found in ghettos. Universities aren't in the middle of slums. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | I'm not talking about exceptions Romana, I'm specifically talking about probabilities and generalities and the like. I'm not sitting here saying that just because I was raised in low income neighborhoods that it means I can't talk to an intelligent person like you, or that Einstein never existed.
Being intellectual doesn't necessarily include an intense valuing of intelligence or 'thriving' on intellecual pursuits. It just describes someone who is smart, educated and rational. Intellectuals don't always start off as such before education. Education tends to make a person an intellectual. Poor people are less likely, percentage wise, to take advantage of higher educations. You're mostly right that there are more of them in college because there are more middle class and working class folks, but you seem to be missing out on all the other people. Ya know? That huge percentage that isn't of the same calibur. And since the middle and lower classes form the majorities of our societies, then it is safe to assume that they are getting the short end of the opportunity stick. Why are you trying to say that being poor means anything else besides less opportunity?
If I was contrasting workers and intellectuals, it probably revolved around what I've been saying the whole time: the lower classes tend to have a lower predisposition towards educational activity. Workers do tend to not come from wealth, and intellectualism tends to revolve around wealth. The best schools aren't found in ghettos. Universities aren't in the middle of slums. |
You seem to have cause and effect backwards here. I would think that wealth revolves around "intellectualism" instead of the other way around.
Anyway, I don't think Romana was ever trying to say that poor people have all the same opportunities. It's just that the way you're talking it kinda sounds like you think all intellectuals came from rich families, which is blatantly not true. As Romana said, most of them do not.
Anyway, I'm kind of afraid that the world isn't ready for equal opportunity. After all, if everyone had the same chance to succeed, that would mean the less successful people deserved what they got. People latch onto any excuse they can find, sometimes even going as far as to make their excuses true. Which explains a lot about politics, really.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:25 am Post subject: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
Using behaviorism, how does one DEAL with a person
of negative energy?
Does one seek to talk "sense" to the other?
Does one argue and (thus sink to their level)?
Does one use emotional intelligence and seek to be a
"therapist" for the irrational person?
Does one "ignore" them because "they are not
at your level", and keep walking.
Walking the path and seeking others of similar or higher "spiritual"
awareness, that one can actually learn from.
A negative person is like a person chasing their own tail.
There is no use arguing with them.
They have little to offer in the sense of enlightenment.
Are they "worth" the energy?
They need to learn life lessons before they might "awaken".
You can not generally reason with them.
They need to "CHIOOSE" the path of healing first, and start to use critical
thinking, instead of blaming others or life.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, i don't think i need to say that different approaches work for different people and relationships.
it IS a matter of relationships when you are trying to help, reach out or convince someone of something.
I'm big on building trust and confidence in a relationship before pushing someone to make a change. If it would be comfortable they probably would have done it by then.
So you build a pattern of trust with people and then when you tell them to jump, they believe they'll make it to the other side.
That sounds a lot like meddling and forcing your ideas on other people, so i can understand why tolerance is usually thought about as keeping your hands off and mouth shut. That's not how i roll though.
| Quote: | Does one seek to talk "sense" to the other?
Does one argue and (thus sink to their level)?
Does one use emotional intelligence and seek to be a
"therapist" for the irrational person?
Does one "ignore" them because "they are not
at your level", and keep walking. |
All of these at the same time. You talk sense to someone using emotional intelligence and pushing positive ideas into their negativity. I selected 'ignoring them' as well because results aren't always seen and you can't lose sleep over it. Most of us aren't therapists and knowing your own limits is always key. Compartmentalisation has confused connotations for me. I want everything to make sense all the time, like one working long term model, but splitting things up makes handling ideas and emotions a lot easier.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques for healing society |
|
|
Trust and patience and forbearance are components, among other things in
building bridges in which to communicate, I concur, C.Beck.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | | Being intellectual doesn't necessarily include an intense valuing of intelligence or 'thriving' on intellecual pursuits. It just describes someone who is smart, educated and rational. Intellectuals don't always start off as such before education. Education tends to make a person an intellectual. Poor people are less likely, percentage wise, to take advantage of higher educations. You're mostly right that there are more of them in college because there are more middle class and working class folks, but you seem to be missing out on all the other people. Ya know? That huge percentage that isn't of the same caliber. And since the middle and lower classes form the majorities of our societies, then it is safe to assume that they are getting the short end of the opportunity stick. Why are you trying to say that being poor means anything else besides less opportunity? |
How do you know that I was not raised in a poor neighborhood as well? And who says an intellectual cannot talk to a worker, or businessman, or servicemember, with benefit to both? We do not need to turn more people into intellectuals, or workers, but rather to give everyone better access to the path that suits them best, and to get these disparate groups to respect and talk to each other more.
Of course, poor people do not have the same opportunities as wealthy people, but the opportunity to develop into an intellectual is just one of many things to which they have less access. The "other people not of the same caliber" should not try to become intellectuals. The "other people" among the wealthy sometimes try, but even with ready access to good education, will fail due to personal limitations.
If your definition of intellectual is someone who is smart, educated, and rational, then poor people are just as likely to fit two parts of this description: it is the education they will lack. Every economic class contains plenty of mentally limited and irrational folks. The wealthy are just able to use their wealth to compensate. There is a significant number of the wealthy who take education for granted like everything else, and feel no need to work at learning. There is a proportionally similar group among the poor who see education as their way out. These are the parents who work multiple menial jobs so their kids can attend even community college, and have a chance for a better life. I would argue that such a student benefits more from his education than any spoiled brat in the Ivy League.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Without even having read anything of yours yet Romana, I've pretty much decided to let this lay. Thinking last night, after far away from a computer, I realized all I was trying to do was be right and trying to prove you wrong. Pretty useless eh? I'm going to put more energy into reading more and trying to find out what is right, and trying to know the rightest, instead of just trying to be it. If all I am doing is trying to be right, I feel pretty lost.
Excuse my not wanting to continue this. Now I'll read up on what you wrote and think about it, then read more on the subject. I'll have to read more if I want to claim half the bullshit I say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:07 am Post subject: BEHAVIORSM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
Stuckasfook, am impressed.
What you sad is very wise. I also read over others writings seeking to
learn and grow. As well as adding pieces of the puzzle together.
So thank you : Annabel_Lee, C.Beck, Curtain1, Fathergia, HatchBack176,
Isra, Kastor, Kyle, Lenka, Mayflow, Mescaline, nonentropic,
ohifwinterends, Purity, RadicalDreamer, Romana,
Stuckasfook, The Troll Emperor of Doom, Thrusthamster,
Yarrow, Zephr, zillah and everyone else that I don't
know as well.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am back. To begin a discussion again, if anyone so wishes, after some time reading and some time thinking.
I see some coments made by people who seemed to be arguing with me are almost like what I was originally trying to say. This is strange. Nonetheless, I would prefer to continue. Evidences and logic will be good for any who choose to read and learn about our system of government. It is wise to understand the hows and whys of our awesome attempt at a free and just societies - some of the best yet in many opinions and in many ways.
Things like anti-intellectualism, lack of access to information and less chance to become educated to the maximum are very characteristic of people with less wealth, the lower classes. I'm going to borrow many quotes now from the book Political Man: The Social Bases for Politics, by S. M. Lipset, written in 1963, the Anchor Books edition. There were many that I've found favorable from what I have already written down and some that I've found favorable that I chose to extract because of the nature of this discussion. The order will mostly be that of page numbers, from beginning towards the end. Any typos in the quotes will be mine. I will be reading into some of these quotes to try and connect what is being said with my original statements about poverty and less wealth being more fruitful for the formation of ignorance, compared to that of upper wealthier classes.
"The proposition that the lack of a rich, complex frame of reference is the bital variable which connects low status and a predispotion toward extremism does not necessarily suggest that the lower strat will be authoritarian; it implies that, other things being equal, they will choose the least complex alternative. Thus in situation in which extremism represents the more complex rather than the less complex form of politics, low status should be associated with to such movements and parties." - pg 116
Here, although the lower classes have the most cynical ideas about democracy and the most authoritarian attitudes about many things in general, it is suggested that authoritarianism is only picked when it is the least complex option. The thought involved in being able to understand and take the value of intricate ideology is indicative of those with lower status and wealth being less prone to intellectual activity if they, the lower classes, are more readily intolerant to the intricate concepts. Authoritarianism usually represents a simple set of rules and so it is more readily chosen.
"The upper occupational groups not only have more education, their job activities continue their intellectual development, at least along certain practical lines. Most executives and business owners and many branches of the professions deal daily with complex legal, economic, and technical problems which develop their understanding of the workings of complex social and political mechanisms. Routine clerical and manual jobs, on the other hand, allow littler opportunity for aquiring such insight." -pg 198
Here it is shown that being of the higher stratum usually also means that education is higher. People that immerse themselves in the higher stratum therefore create lifestyles that tend to revolve around higher levels of thinking, and, consequently, it would appear logical that they also tend to likewise immerse their children in the same kind of lifestyle.
"...increased participation might threaten the workings of democracy since nonvoting was largely located among the most ignorant part of the electorate. ANd subsequent studies based on survey and questionnaire data, some of which are reported or cited in chapter 4, indicate that nonvoters differ from voters in having authoritarian attitudes, cynical ideas about democracy and political parties, intolerant sentiments on deviant opinions and thnic minorities, and in preferring strong leaders in government." -pg 228
Nonvoting, political apathy and authoritarian attitudes are majorly found in the least educated, the least wealthy.
"Among middle-class and well-paid working-class parents, children are one of the prime reasons for the move to the suburbs. The concern for the welfare of children may also have more subtle psychological effects, causing a parent to become aware, often for the first time, of the positive functions of authority mechanisms in a society." -pg 284
This is interesting in that it seems to denote an understanding amongst folks with children that the inner city and working class districts aren't viable locations to give their children the best opportunities that they can. The economic class of a given neighborhood appears to be a salient issue.
This next bit is very interesting. It will be noted that the U.S. has led the longest lived democracy where socioeconomic cleavage has been an important issue throughout its nationhood.
"Even before the developement of the two-party system in its present form, the political issues dividing society tended to have a class character. Free public schools, for example, did not emerge naturally and logically from the structure and values of American society. Rather, as one historian of AMerican education, Ellwood P. Cubberley, has pointed out: "Excepting for the battle for the abolition of slavery, perhaps no question has ever been before the American people for settlement which caused so much feeling or aroused such bitter antagonism." In large part it was a struggle between liberals and conservatives in the modern sense of the term, although religious issues also played a strong role. "The friends of free schools were at first commonly regarded as fanatics, dangerous to the States, and the opponents of free schools were considered by them as old line conservatives or as selfish members of society." Among the arguments presented for free education was that "a common state school, equally open to all, would prevent that class differentiation so dangerious in a Republic"; while opponents of such schools argued that they "will make education too common, and will educate people out of their proper station in society... [and] would break down long-established and very desirable social barriers." On one side of the issue were the poorer classes; on the other, "the old aristocratic class... the conservatives of society...taxpayers." " -pg 309
The battle for making more fair opportunities for all in the realm of education is not a new one. This is a good thing, or we'd be far behind were we are currently at.
Romana, when reading through this, and also reading through your last post, I couldn't help but see a similarity in your position, " The "other people not of the same caliber" should not try to become intellectuals", and the position in the quote of those who didn't want to see free public schools. Though, knowing a small bit of who you are, I would think that we were reading too much into eachother's statements. When I said not of the same caliber, I didn't mean that they were incapable of becoming intellectual, but instead that they were denied the same avenues of access in the first place. Of course not everyone has to become a scientist, a novelist or a poet; but it isn't fair to assume that they couldn't, since the opportunity wasn't even close to those that were wealthier, and sometimes the opportunity plain out wasn't there.
Education itself, thoroughly taught and given the thrill it often deserves, would, in itself, be enough to sway away from irrational thought everywhere. One needn't be a political scientist to see through the deceptive tactics of politicians, but one need be educated. Also, being educated usually means more tolerance and coherent political participation in general. It also denies the outlandish beliefs that see thinking and intellectualism as bad things.
Mostly, education isn't necessarily about being a super computer, sometimes it just means that the less wealthy, those who have been typically denied the freedom of thought and denied the cultured creative impulse, are given an opportunity to live their lives in a way that lets them see themselves as something more than just a worker; lets them see themselves as something more than just a part in the capitalistic system that revolves around 'ends' and lets them see themselves as something more than just a figure in a boss's ledger book. Education can be a means to a happier and more fulfilling life. It is evident everywhere. Being versed in thoughtfulness allows greater social mobility, greater power of discourse and greater access to a plethora of things that can make you and your family happy: art, music, reading. Not to mention, again, that it allows for more tolerance and thus makes others around more happy because they aren't being attacked on the nonsensical basis of race, ethnicity, religion or job class.
Being an intellectual doesn't have to mean being a professor or a teacher or a astrophysicist.
"The fundamental factor in noneconomic liberalism is not actually class, but education, general sophistication, and probably to a certain extent psychic security. But since these factors are strongly correlated with class, noneconomic liberalism is positively associated with social status (the wealthier are more tolerant), while economic liberalism is inversely correlated with social status (the poor are more leftist on such issues)." -pg 318
This explicitiy states the connection between education and class. It also reaffirms some of the things I've already said.
"Yet studies which have compared the ratings made by people from different classes indicate that those in high scoial and economic positions actualyl think far better of intellectual pursuits than do those in the working and lower classes." -pg 348
Again, lower status and wealth are indicators of less of a disposition toward intellectual activity than those of the wealthy. The 'Yet' alludes to the fact that professors and the like see themselves as low standing for status amongst the other elite of society from the business and more monetary oriented ends. Yet, as we see here, they are thought of highly by such people. It is posited in the book that the same equalitarian attitudes and beliefs that are pushed by so many intellectuals, over the centuries, are part of the reason that they feel they do not get the respect they deserve, compared to their European and Canadian counterparts.
"He [David Riesman] points out that intellectually oriented students are usually in a small minority in American public high schools. As deviants from the school norms, which emphazsize nonintellectual concerns, budding intellectuals are often ridiculed and isolated. This early school experience remains with them in later life, and any subsequent criticism of their intellectuality reminds them of their high school experience. If this is true, those intellectuals in this country and elsewhere who studied in schools designed to train an elite should be much less worried about anti-intellectualism. " - pg 355
Here, Riesman is commented on as providing a possible theory for the sensitivity of intellectuals to criticism. It would seem to make sense. Further, one should expect to find less worry and insecurity amongst high schools that draw students from higher class families, and hence, families with less authoritarian, arbitrary and anti-intellectual tendancies.
To finish off the quotations I'll bring this to bear:
"Though professors prefer to believe that they are undervalued by people outside of the intellectual fraternity, the fact that they are able to attract into their ranks men from relatively privileged origins suggests that their occupation is actualyl highly valued. Almost half the respondents have fathers who are in managerial posts or in professions other than teaching. Only 15 percent are the children of manual workers. A comparison of these data with those on different samples of the American business elite, like the heads of groups are roughly similar. Actually the comparison may be unfair to the academic profession since the sample of college professors is drawn from all institutions of higher learning in the United States, and professors at the better institutions (which are on the average the largest schools) come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds: 62 per cent of those at very large schools (above 9,000 students) are from managerial or professional families, as contrasted with 49 per cent at very small ones (700 and below); two thirds of the social scientists at private nondenominational schools are from high status backgrounds, as compared with 44 per cent at institutions with a religious affiliation or at teachers' colleges. Since the social sciences do not carry the highest prestige within the university, it is possible that the social origins of humanists and natural scientists are even higher"
The table offered these facts (the father's occupation will be followed by a number, representing a percentage of what the social origins of university social scientists are): Teacher (largely college professors) 8, other professional 23, managerial 25, white-collar and small business 15, farmer 13, manual labor, no information given 1.
All this was on page 349 and 350.
This is the best evidence for the statement that thinkers tend to crop up in the more well to do of society.
I've already gone over how wealth gives way to being able to afford things like books and computers in our largely capitalistic system; and how when one isn't faced with having to work menial and manual jobs, for many hours a week, there is more opportunity to literally think of other things, like politics and philosophy, and more liesure time to join clubs and other associations that require thinking; and that the very idea of living such a lifestyle means that children are likewise brought up in similar ways.
This can be taken further, I think, in a globalized view: the wealthier nations, the democracies, what we call the West, tend to be the most educated folks on the planet, whereas the least wealthy, the third world countries, tend to have the least amount of schools, texts and access to news or other information. Wealth truly is important for giving access to knowledge in a capitalistic system. Free public schooling and other socialistic concepts turn away the unfair monopolizing of inherited monied interests. The very idea of welcoming an uneducated populice or leaving active anti-intellectual elements is never healthy for a place where each person is given the right to vote. Such a factor is explosive, and even more so in an age of globalization and increased ability to anahilate one another.
I am very much willing to discuss anything I have said. But I would prefer if words weren't put in my mouth, or words twisted or things made up. As far as I know, I never said anything about the impossibility of people like Einstein. If I did, it was a terrible wrong on my part. But since I made it clear at the beginning of this page, and am pretty sure I made it relevant in this post, I expect some degree of consistency with only what I said, and nothing I didn't say. I think I am at least not owed things like this, in response to everything I just typed:
| Quote: | | It's just that the way you're talking it kinda sounds like you think all intellectuals came from rich families, which is blatantly not true. |
Which is what I blatantly didn't say in the post prior to it.
Let the dialogue begin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stuckasfook, the only thing I take issue with is that you somehow seem to believe that intellectuals are the problem. The way I see it, intellectuals are the only people fighting for everyone's right to education. Unfortunately our society has had a huge anti-intellectual backlash from this for reasons that still escape me, which leaves us at an impasse that I see no way out of.
Apparently you don't really mean to say that intellectuals are bad. You say lots of things, but your actual point is completely missing from your writing. From the things you keep disagreeing with I can't see any logical conclusion except that you see this as some kind of class warfare, but if that's true then the educated elites are fighting on the side of the working class and the working class is fighting for the educated elites.
I mean, your quotes of some guy's opinions from the 60s are interesting and all, but what the hell are you even trying to say?
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadicalDreamer
Advanced Member
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 4049
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zephr wrote: | | Unfortunately our society has had a huge anti-intellectual backlash from this for reasons that still escape me, which leaves us at an impasse that I see no way out of. |
Hidden Curriculum?
_________________
| Raven wrote: |  |
Function preference: Whatever my muse desires and requires at any given moment |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:48 pm Post subject: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
Perhaps it is a matter of communication.
There are those that seriously wish to bridge the gap.
However there are language differences.
I have read books that used such severe "intellectual" language with
"20" syllable words that I had to decipher it as a foreign language.
Language used in this way is boring.
Moreover it s used at times to impress colleagues and is in a sense "unreal".
How can you communicate and reach people with unfeeling inhuman
language?
Somehow there has to be a common ground of understanding, dialogue,
and communication.
If one uses language with superfluous language it could be construed as
condescending and thus resented and even worst ignored.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: Re: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
| lightsun wrote: | I have read books that used such severe "intellectual" language with
"20" syllable words that I had to decipher it as a foreign language.
Language used in this way is boring.
Moreover it s used at times to impress colleagues and is in a sense "unreal".
How can you communicate and reach people with unfeeling inhuman
language?
Somehow there has to be a common ground of understanding, dialogue,
and communication. |
I do this all the time; it's called "technical writing". I'm actually considered rather good at it.
(attempt at humor)
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
Romana, I have no doubt you are excellent at writing
in literary scientific journals.
Your language is clear, concise, and generally clear of
distortions which affect everyone.
I am talking about reaching the masses.
I'll give specific examples.
Albert Bandura wrote "Principles of Behavior Modification".
I read it.
It is an excellent book on his "social learning theory".
However, it was laborious. I would never recommend it to
a lay person.
Now Abraham Maslow wrote "Motivation and
Personality". His language is clear with his "hierarchy
of needs" & his "self actualization" theory.
Plus it is more universally known than Bandura's fine
work.
The point is to get fresh ideas to the masses means
talking in clear, concise, understandable language that
does not go over the audiences head.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zephr wrote: | Stuckasfook, the only thing I take issue with is that you somehow seem to believe that intellectuals are the problem. The way I see it, intellectuals are the only people fighting for everyone's right to education. Unfortunately our society has had a huge anti-intellectual backlash from this for reasons that still escape me, which leaves us at an impasse that I see no way out of.
Apparently you don't really mean to say that intellectuals are bad. You say lots of things, but your actual point is completely missing from your writing. From the things you keep disagreeing with I can't see any logical conclusion except that you see this as some kind of class warfare, but if that's true then the educated elites are fighting on the side of the working class and the working class is fighting for the educated elites.
I mean, your quotes of some guy's opinions from the 60s are interesting and all, but what the hell are you even trying to say? |
jeeze my friend. jeeze loweeze
| Quote: | | Things like anti-intellectualism, lack of access to information and less chance to become educated to the maximum are very characteristic of people with less wealth, the lower classes |
This is all I was really trying to say. But many things connect to it, and in many ways, and so it might be easy to lose the point in all the stuff I typed. Nonetheless that is all I have been trying to say. As far as this point missing from my writing: I've no fucking idea mate what yer speakin. When I brought up, long ago, that wealth can be dominant in determining the ability of a person to become educated, I was disagreed with; mostly the disagreement seemed to flow from some kind of assumption that I was saying wealth needed to be salient for education to follow - which I never said. Then it got dragged on and on, and I felt like I wasn't being read or heard, so I stopped. Then I came back with all these '60s quotes' to present clearly what I meant. Which you are now saying was unclear.
Yes, as you said, education does usually lead to tolerance and helpful behavior for everyone. But education itself seems to be easiest for the wealthy. It's almost too simple right?
And again, I didn't say that intellectuals were the problem. I don't really understand how you think that in light of what I have been saying (ie: intellectuals are the ones who tend to be tolerant). I never said being intellectual was bad at all. In fact, educated people are the only people I like being around. And, for the record, education occurs in more places than just universities and schools.
| Quote: | | class warfare, but if that's true then the educated elites are fighting on the side of the working class and the working class is fighting for the educated elites. |
Instead of jumping to wild conclusions, saying things that aren't there, may I ask: 'what do you mean kind sir?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
