The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Some people believe that if a large percentage of a population questions authority, then the whole group to which the population belongs is bound to suffer. However, some groups thrive when there is radical dissent from authority among a large percentage of the population. For example, it seems to me that the Age of the Enlightenment was a result of more and more people questioning the established authority of the church, and asking difficult questions about the causal structure of the observable universe. While some people might argue that this wide-spread questioning was destructive to the status quo and created more harm than good, I would point to the obvious increase in quality of life for the average person. For example, in the middle ages, if the average person were to contract a bacterial infection of the chest, then there was a good chance that the person would either suffer a long period of illness or die. In the former case, these long periods of illness would detract from the sick person's ability to contribute to the household, and as a result, even if the family did not contract the same sickness, they would inevitably suffer from the loss of the contribution of their sick family member. Once people began to question the church, and its established authority concerning the causal structures of the known, observable universe, in many cases these same people were able to create remedies for bacterial illnesses. The courage to question authority has resulted in antibiotics and as a result the quality of life for the average family has drastically increased. Therefore, it is not true that when some people question authority, the whole group suffers.
A more interesting proposal might be that if a large percentage of a population begin to question legitimate authority, then the entire group of people may be bound to suffer. For example, most people would agree that the practice of genocide is morally evil. Conscience and empathy for our fellow human beings simply does not permit this form of radical doubt and questioning. But, what happens when large groups of the population do begin to doubt this legitimate tenant of conscience and act on their doubt? In the case of the Third Reich German state during the second world war, millions of Jewish people were tortured, treated like garbage and murdered in cold blood. In the case of Darfur, millions of people were tortured, slain and thrown away like garbage. This happened because people began to question the basic authoritative tenants of human conscience, the tenants that demand empathy, respect, and cooperation among the human species.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Ugh
Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Major
What or who is society? The term 'society' is ambiguous. The result will vary depending on who we designate as responsible for identifying special talents in children and providing training for them.
What are special talents? Who we train will depend on what we take to be a special talent.
Minor
What sort of training will be provided?
What good could result from the proposal?
There may be an increase in the number of young experts. An increase in the number of young experts is desirable because there may be problems that require diligent work over a life time. Young experts would have a longer time to work on these pressing problems.
This is an emotional topic because it seems to grant special privilege to select people. But, it does not say that some children will not be selected for training. It may turn out to be the case that all children possess unique talents, and that society will be burdened with keeping its promise to provide special training to all children. The implication may be that society ought to select those AND ONLY THOSE children that have special talents and provide them with training; but it is not clear that this implication was intended in the original meaning of the statement.
I am suppose to select examples that show how the proposal will be advantageous or disadvantageous.
Society should identify those children who have special talents and should provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Key terms
Society
Identify
Special talents
provide training
Society could use either standardized tests or naturalistic observations by teachers and parents or both in order to identify special talents in children. The problem with standardized tests is that they are predictable and since they are predictable, they can be manipulated, gamed and prepared for by anyone who possesses adequate resources. Therefore, insofar as the test is a stepping stone to a good, it will typically be only those with the resources that gain access to the good that lay behind the test. On the other hand, naturalistic observations by parents and teachers are subject to prejudice and bias. Every parent wants the best for their child, and teacher's typically only observe the child in one particular setting. Therefore, neither parent nor teacher observation is ground alone for recommending a child for special training based on an identification of special talent. Some balanced combination of naturalistic observation and standardized testing may alleviate the defects of the methods of identifying special talents on their own.
Starts....
Starts....
Society should not identify those children who have special talents and should not provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position
My mother attempted to identify talents that she saw in me as a child. At one time, she saw a sportsman. She enlisted in me basketball, football, indoor soccer, ice hockey and little league baseball. By far, I was the worst at baseball. Although, as an honorable mention, my football skills may have contributed to my teams three year losing streak. Anyway, I remember the baseball team coach was nice enough to appease my mother by placing me in the right outfield. It was the outfield for losers, the solitary solipsistic outfield since very few batters were left handed and therefore very few balls were hit into the right field. I will never forget the game that ended my little league baseball career. On a hot summer afternoon, I stood in the dusty right field, glove in hand, drifting away into a fantasy world of swimming in lakes and sweet italian ice. The sun was glaring, and the umpire whistle blaring. The sound of the parental bleachers woke me, "Danny, Danny, catch it, catch it, the ball, the ball! filled my aural space of fantasy. I searched through the sky for that effigy of American past time; my panic intensified. Still, the screams and no ball. And then, I experienced the awakening. Parents ought not choose sports for their children. When parents choose sports for their children, their children are struck between the eyes with an odd fly ball to the left out field, the outfield for solitude; their intrinsic right to a silent period of fantasy and dream is stifled. Later in life, my mother caught on to my lack of sportsmanship. She enrolled me in art classes. But, the damage was already done, the association formed: performance was anxiety provoking, and it wouldn't be until a quarter of a century later, after years of self sought talk therapy that I would be able to pursue my own past time. The problem with the statement is that it gives no credit to what children want for themselves. It ignores their voice, and their say in their future. No doubt adults ought to identify special talents and provide support for those burgeoning abilities in children, but the problem is that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a "special talent" or even the best method for edifying that talent. Children have many special talents. I did not have a talent at baseball, but my mother saw that talent in me. The result was a disaster. Some people might object that more objective perspective may be able to identify a "special talent". In that case, they might advocate for several opinions and move toward specialized testing. But, children are already burdened with the testing they have in regular school to learn reading and writing and mathematics. Further standardized testing simply robs children of their exploratory childhood. Some explore in silence, and some explore openly. As adults, we ought to respect those differences, and rather than seek to identify special talents, we ought to recognize special talents and encourage even more of those talents to grow by providing catholic support and training.
WHY CAN'T I WRITE A COHERENT PEICE!
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Major
What or who is society? The term 'society' is ambiguous. The result will vary depending on who we designate as responsible for identifying special talents in children and providing training for them.
What are special talents? Who we train will depend on what we take to be a special talent.
Minor
What sort of training will be provided?
What good could result from the proposal?
There may be an increase in the number of young experts. An increase in the number of young experts is desirable because there may be problems that require diligent work over a life time. Young experts would have a longer time to work on these pressing problems.
This is an emotional topic because it seems to grant special privilege to select people. But, it does not say that some children will not be selected for training. It may turn out to be the case that all children possess unique talents, and that society will be burdened with keeping its promise to provide special training to all children. The implication may be that society ought to select those AND ONLY THOSE children that have special talents and provide them with training; but it is not clear that this implication was intended in the original meaning of the statement.
I am suppose to select examples that show how the proposal will be advantageous or disadvantageous.
Society should identify those children who have special talents and should provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Key terms
Society
Identify
Special talents
provide training
Society could use either standardized tests or naturalistic observations by teachers and parents or both in order to identify special talents in children. The problem with standardized tests is that they are predictable and since they are predictable, they can be manipulated, gamed and prepared for by anyone who possesses adequate resources. Therefore, insofar as the test is a stepping stone to a good, it will typically be only those with the resources that gain access to the good that lay behind the test. On the other hand, naturalistic observations by parents and teachers are subject to prejudice and bias. Every parent wants the best for their child, and teacher's typically only observe the child in one particular setting. Therefore, neither parent nor teacher observation is ground alone for recommending a child for special training based on an identification of special talent. Some balanced combination of naturalistic observation and standardized testing may alleviate the defects of the methods of identifying special talents on their own.
Starts....
Starts....
Society should not identify those children who have special talents and should not provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position
My mother attempted to identify talents that she saw in me as a child. At one time, she saw a sportsman. She enlisted in me basketball, football, indoor soccer, ice hockey and little league baseball. By far, I was the worst at baseball. Although, as an honorable mention, my football skills may have contributed to my teams three year losing streak. Anyway, I remember the baseball team coach was nice enough to appease my mother by placing me in the right outfield. It was the outfield for losers, the solitary solipsistic outfield since very few batters were left handed and therefore very few balls were hit into the right field. I will never forget the game that ended my little league baseball career. On a hot summer afternoon, I stood in the dusty right field, glove in hand, drifting away into a fantasy world of swimming in lakes and sweet italian ice. The sun was glaring, and the umpire whistle blaring. The sound of the parental bleachers woke me, "Danny, Danny, catch it, catch it, the ball, the ball! filled my aural space of fantasy. I searched through the sky for that effigy of American past time; my panic intensified. Still, the screams and no ball. And then, I experienced the awakening. Parents ought not choose sports for their children. When parents choose sports for their children, their children are struck between the eyes with an odd fly ball to the left out field, the outfield for solitude; their intrinsic right to a silent period of fantasy and dream is stifled. Later in life, my mother caught on to my lack of sportsmanship. She enrolled me in art classes. But, the damage was already done, the association formed: performance was anxiety provoking, and it wouldn't be until a quarter of a century later, after years of self sought talk therapy that I would be able to pursue my own past time. The problem with the statement is that it gives no credit to what children want for themselves. It ignores their voice, and their say in their future. No doubt adults ought to identify special talents and provide support for those burgeoning abilities in children, but the problem is that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a "special talent" or even the best method for edifying that talent. Children have many special talents. I did not have a talent at baseball, but my mother saw that talent in me. The result was a disaster. Some people might object that more objective perspective may be able to identify a "special talent". In that case, they might advocate for several opinions and move toward specialized testing. But, children are already burdened with the testing they have in regular school to learn reading and writing and mathematics. Further standardized testing simply robs children of their exploratory childhood. Some explore in silence, and some explore openly. As adults, we ought to respect those differences, and rather than seek to identify special talents, we ought to recognize special talents and encourage even more of those talents to grow by providing catholic support and training.
WHY CAN'T I WRITE A COHERENT PEICE!
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Stupid GRE
Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.
As I see it, the idea that people should be encouraged to pursue realistic, long term goals, rather than immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that there are such things as "realistic, long term" goals.
I would need some examples that show there are no such things as "realistic, long term" goals. That would be my evidence.
As I see it, the idea that people should seek immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that "fame and recognition" can be defined. They can't.
I would need some evidence to show that the definitions of fame and recognition is inherently ambiguous.
As I see it, the idea that people should be encouraged to pursue realistic, long term goals, rather than immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that there are such things as "realistic, long term" goals.
I would need some examples that show there are no such things as "realistic, long term" goals. That would be my evidence.
As I see it, the idea that people should seek immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that "fame and recognition" can be defined. They can't.
I would need some evidence to show that the definitions of fame and recognition is inherently ambiguous.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Math
Ugh...so, I figure I am going to start documenting the errors that I make on the math portion of the GRE.
One thing that I notice is that I tend to panic when I don't recognize what is being asked in a particular question. For instance, I know absolutely nothing about 3-D figures, or solids. I don't know what a diagonal is, and I don't know how to find an area. Although, I think it may be s^3. Whatever it is, I panic when I am confronted by a question like that...
I am able to draw 3D cubes and rectangles; and so I do. And then I label the sides. I look at it, and I wonder, what is a diagonal on this image. It's a definition I just don't know the meaning of...and so I panic...I make something up and pick a answer. What am I supposed to do? I read the answer on the practices I'm doing and walk away...if I am confronted by that exact same question on the test, I'd get it correct...but, that's highly unlikely, and it seems like a very poor way to study.
In the back of my mind, I am thinking...well, if only I could get more organized.
Things seem simply when they are axiomatically stated. For instance, the sum of the lengths of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side. Ok, so, if I have a triangle with sides a, b, c and I want to compare the quantity a + b + c to 2b, I could reason that if the sum of the length of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side, then when two sides of a triangle are added together, and compared to a third side, the added two sides will be larger, but if I double the third side, what follows? The added two sides will be a + c > b and the third side would be 2b. Now, distribute a 2 to all sides of the equation 2a + 2c > 2b, what follows? Not much of help. If the equation said that a + c > 2b, I'd be money. But, it doesn't. I suppose I could try to -2b from one side, and get 2a + 2c - 2b > 0 and then I could factor out the 2, leaving me with 2(a + c - b) > 0, but that doesn't do me any good either.
So, here is another one of my problems when it comes to the GRE. I can manipulate the elements of an equation and hope to hit upon a solution, but what sort of thing am I doing if I am not driven by a purpose? The purpose should be to get either 2b > (a + b + c) OR (a + b + c) > 2b OR (a + b + c) = 2b OR come up with a proof that shows that the two quantities are ambiguous.
So, list what the end result should look like...
2b > (a + b + c) v (a + b + c) > 2b v (a + b + c) = 2b v ambiguous
Assume that...
a + c > b since we're dealing with a rule that says that the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone.
Ok, then, what? How can I make (a + c) > b look like one of the end results....
I could add b to both sides: a + c + b > b + b; thus, (a + b + c) > 2b
So, if I know the rule that is being tested in the GRE, then I could work with this sort of strategy. I can list out the possible solutions, and the rule. And then, I could ask myself, how can I may the rule look like one of the outcomes. Really, rules seem to be the wrong way to think about these simple statements, statements like the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone; instead, let's call them facts. As facts, they serve as my true premise. Insofar as I use valid reasoning, I ought to be able start with a true premise and reason to a true conclusion. Since the GRE supplies only four possible true conclusions, all I need to know is the fact that they want me begin with...
Take another example,
x/y = z/4; and all the variables are positive.
Compare 6x and 2yz
Well, I know that positives divided by positives are positive. I know that an integer divided by fraction always equals a larger integer. For instance, 4/1/2 = 8 and so on. But, we're getting ahead of ourselves. What is the true conclusion that I am supposed to reason to find? There are four possibilities. Those possibilities are...
A) 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz or 6x = 2yz or ambiguous
So, what do I know...
I know that an integer divided by a fraction equals a bigger integer; and I know that a fraction divided by an integer equals a smaller fraction...
But, that's not exactly helpful information for me.
So, what is being tested here?
How can I make x/y = z/4 look like one of my true conclusions?
I could try to make it look like the one with the equal sign. How?
Multiple both sides by 6...
6(x/y) = 12yz
Divide each side by 6
x/y = 2yz
Divide x/y, a fraction, by 2, an integer...
x/y/2=x/y*1/2=x/2y
x/2y=yz....
But, wait....
When I had...x/y = 2yz, I can substitute in x/y in my conclusions...
So, either 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
And we know that x/y = z/4
So, 6x > z/4 or 6x < z/4
So, 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
So, 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz
I need these...x/y = z/4 = 2yz...to look like something above....
The problem is that I have an integer on one side and fractions on both sides....
So, the question is asking me to compare 6x to quantities that I know little about....
x/y=z/4= (4x=yz)
8x=2yz
6x<2yz
So, the problem I have in this question doesn't appear to be capable of being solved in the way that I solved earlier. Or at last, there is something that I missed in trying to solve it. I have the vague idea that I have true conclusions, and I need to validly reason to only one of them, but I'm not sure of how to go about doing that....something is missing...I know not what.....
Another....
1/x > 1/x^2; x ~= 0
x or 1/4
x>1/4 v x<1/4 v x=1/4 v ambiguous
What's the easy way to do this?
Well, for starters, I feel like I am dealing with three different things.
I could pick numbers.
That's about the only thing I feel like i know how to do here...
4>8 is false....so x can't be 1/4
But, we know if x was a fraction, that a fraction squared will always be less than the original, and an integer divided by fraction will always produce a larger integer, therefore, an integer divided by a fraction squared will result in a larger integer had the fraction not be squared.
Proof.....2/1/4=8 and 2/1/4^2=2/1/16=32
So, if x were a fraction, then it would turn out that the original statement is false; but the GRE is not giving us false information; therefore, we can assume that x is not a fraction. And if x is not a fraction, and x ~=0, then it would have to be the case that x was bigger than 1/4. Therefore, A would be correct.
Ok, here's something ratios....
I don't know shit about ratios....
If for every 1 freshman I have 3 of sophomores, we say this is a ratio of 1F to 3S.
Apparently, I can set up a fraction with variables. f/s=1/3
Simp. 3f=s
Now, if for every 3 sophomores there are 5 juniors....we say this is a ratio of 3S to 5J
s/j=3/5 = 5s=3j
And, 5(3f)=3j =15f=3j =5 freshmen to 1junior
What is the ratio of freshmen to juniors?
F
SSS
JJJJJ
Another....
55 student
4 boys to 7 girls
How many girls do I need to add to make the ratio become 1 to 2?
First, how many boys and how many girls are there?
For every 11 students, there will be 4 boys and 7 girls. If the group is 55 students, than there will be
5 x 11 = 55, 5 groups of students. And if there are 7 girls in each group there will be 35 girls and 20 boys, which equals out to 55 students. If I want to ratio of boys to girls to be 1 to 2, then if I add 5 more girls to the class, I will get 20 boys to 40 girls, which reduces to 1 to 2....
Fuck man....I'm totally and utterly overwhelmed right now...
One thing that I notice is that I tend to panic when I don't recognize what is being asked in a particular question. For instance, I know absolutely nothing about 3-D figures, or solids. I don't know what a diagonal is, and I don't know how to find an area. Although, I think it may be s^3. Whatever it is, I panic when I am confronted by a question like that...
I am able to draw 3D cubes and rectangles; and so I do. And then I label the sides. I look at it, and I wonder, what is a diagonal on this image. It's a definition I just don't know the meaning of...and so I panic...I make something up and pick a answer. What am I supposed to do? I read the answer on the practices I'm doing and walk away...if I am confronted by that exact same question on the test, I'd get it correct...but, that's highly unlikely, and it seems like a very poor way to study.
In the back of my mind, I am thinking...well, if only I could get more organized.
Things seem simply when they are axiomatically stated. For instance, the sum of the lengths of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side. Ok, so, if I have a triangle with sides a, b, c and I want to compare the quantity a + b + c to 2b, I could reason that if the sum of the length of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side, then when two sides of a triangle are added together, and compared to a third side, the added two sides will be larger, but if I double the third side, what follows? The added two sides will be a + c > b and the third side would be 2b. Now, distribute a 2 to all sides of the equation 2a + 2c > 2b, what follows? Not much of help. If the equation said that a + c > 2b, I'd be money. But, it doesn't. I suppose I could try to -2b from one side, and get 2a + 2c - 2b > 0 and then I could factor out the 2, leaving me with 2(a + c - b) > 0, but that doesn't do me any good either.
So, here is another one of my problems when it comes to the GRE. I can manipulate the elements of an equation and hope to hit upon a solution, but what sort of thing am I doing if I am not driven by a purpose? The purpose should be to get either 2b > (a + b + c) OR (a + b + c) > 2b OR (a + b + c) = 2b OR come up with a proof that shows that the two quantities are ambiguous.
So, list what the end result should look like...
2b > (a + b + c) v (a + b + c) > 2b v (a + b + c) = 2b v ambiguous
Assume that...
a + c > b since we're dealing with a rule that says that the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone.
Ok, then, what? How can I make (a + c) > b look like one of the end results....
I could add b to both sides: a + c + b > b + b; thus, (a + b + c) > 2b
So, if I know the rule that is being tested in the GRE, then I could work with this sort of strategy. I can list out the possible solutions, and the rule. And then, I could ask myself, how can I may the rule look like one of the outcomes. Really, rules seem to be the wrong way to think about these simple statements, statements like the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone; instead, let's call them facts. As facts, they serve as my true premise. Insofar as I use valid reasoning, I ought to be able start with a true premise and reason to a true conclusion. Since the GRE supplies only four possible true conclusions, all I need to know is the fact that they want me begin with...
Take another example,
x/y = z/4; and all the variables are positive.
Compare 6x and 2yz
Well, I know that positives divided by positives are positive. I know that an integer divided by fraction always equals a larger integer. For instance, 4/1/2 = 8 and so on. But, we're getting ahead of ourselves. What is the true conclusion that I am supposed to reason to find? There are four possibilities. Those possibilities are...
A) 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz or 6x = 2yz or ambiguous
So, what do I know...
I know that an integer divided by a fraction equals a bigger integer; and I know that a fraction divided by an integer equals a smaller fraction...
But, that's not exactly helpful information for me.
So, what is being tested here?
How can I make x/y = z/4 look like one of my true conclusions?
I could try to make it look like the one with the equal sign. How?
Multiple both sides by 6...
6(x/y) = 12yz
Divide each side by 6
x/y = 2yz
Divide x/y, a fraction, by 2, an integer...
x/y/2=x/y*1/2=x/2y
x/2y=yz....
But, wait....
When I had...x/y = 2yz, I can substitute in x/y in my conclusions...
So, either 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
And we know that x/y = z/4
So, 6x > z/4 or 6x < z/4
So, 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
So, 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz
I need these...x/y = z/4 = 2yz...to look like something above....
The problem is that I have an integer on one side and fractions on both sides....
So, the question is asking me to compare 6x to quantities that I know little about....
x/y=z/4= (4x=yz)
8x=2yz
6x<2yz
So, the problem I have in this question doesn't appear to be capable of being solved in the way that I solved earlier. Or at last, there is something that I missed in trying to solve it. I have the vague idea that I have true conclusions, and I need to validly reason to only one of them, but I'm not sure of how to go about doing that....something is missing...I know not what.....
Another....
1/x > 1/x^2; x ~= 0
x or 1/4
x>1/4 v x<1/4 v x=1/4 v ambiguous
What's the easy way to do this?
Well, for starters, I feel like I am dealing with three different things.
I could pick numbers.
That's about the only thing I feel like i know how to do here...
4>8 is false....so x can't be 1/4
But, we know if x was a fraction, that a fraction squared will always be less than the original, and an integer divided by fraction will always produce a larger integer, therefore, an integer divided by a fraction squared will result in a larger integer had the fraction not be squared.
Proof.....2/1/4=8 and 2/1/4^2=2/1/16=32
So, if x were a fraction, then it would turn out that the original statement is false; but the GRE is not giving us false information; therefore, we can assume that x is not a fraction. And if x is not a fraction, and x ~=0, then it would have to be the case that x was bigger than 1/4. Therefore, A would be correct.
Ok, here's something ratios....
I don't know shit about ratios....
If for every 1 freshman I have 3 of sophomores, we say this is a ratio of 1F to 3S.
Apparently, I can set up a fraction with variables. f/s=1/3
Simp. 3f=s
Now, if for every 3 sophomores there are 5 juniors....we say this is a ratio of 3S to 5J
s/j=3/5 = 5s=3j
And, 5(3f)=3j =15f=3j =5 freshmen to 1junior
What is the ratio of freshmen to juniors?
F
SSS
JJJJJ
Another....
55 student
4 boys to 7 girls
How many girls do I need to add to make the ratio become 1 to 2?
First, how many boys and how many girls are there?
For every 11 students, there will be 4 boys and 7 girls. If the group is 55 students, than there will be
5 x 11 = 55, 5 groups of students. And if there are 7 girls in each group there will be 35 girls and 20 boys, which equals out to 55 students. If I want to ratio of boys to girls to be 1 to 2, then if I add 5 more girls to the class, I will get 20 boys to 40 girls, which reduces to 1 to 2....
Fuck man....I'm totally and utterly overwhelmed right now...
Issue task 30 minutes
Reason: Students are more motivated to learn when they are interested in what they are studying.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
HOLY SHIT! THAT WAS A DISASTER. When it comes to the subject of education, and learning, my thought becomes incredibly muddled and complicated. I am much better taking about "knowledge" and "belief" and "art"...I will begin to work on only the education questions.
Friday, October 18, 2013
The vice president for human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president.
"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet inappropriately from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet inappropriately from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In a nutshell, the vice president of Climpson has argued that if we monitor employee internet usage while on the clock and punish aberrant usage, then we will deter employees from wasting time, foster a strong work ethic, and improve the company profits. On first glance, this argument seems to compel action. However, prior to making a decision, the company board would be advised to consider the evidence presented by extremely successful corporations.
The board of Climpson ought to be asking the question: have any other companies experimented with providing time for employees to play while on the job? If so, what are the results? Results favoring employee free time would be a strong indication that we need to rethink the basic parameters of leadership at Climpson.
At least two major companies in the modern world have implemented programs that provide specific time during the week for employees to recreate. Both the major internet search engine provider, Google and DuoLingo, an incredibly successful software firm that specializes in free language programs, provide their employees, in addition to the normal lunch hour, time during the week for recreation during which employees can work on the clock on personal projects that they think will help accomplish the overall good of the company. And the results are staggering! Employees report greater on the job satisfaction and productivity has never been better. These companies do not discriminate between "personal" time and "work" time. Rather, they see clearly that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it were the case that companies similar to Climpson have experimented with this method, and the evidence is in favor of providing such "free" time, then it may not be the case that Climpson will need to implement internet monitoring programs. On the contrary, Climpson may benefit from implementing an employee-autonomy focused work schedule. Clearly, then, the VP will need to address this important issue and convince the board that there is strong evidence in favor of monitoring internet usage to increase productivity.
This prior point plays into my last point. The VP of Climpson thinks that internet monitoring will increase work ethic. However, as the last example demonstrates, there is strong evidence on offer than work ethic ties into employee perceptions of personal autonomy. The VP of Climpson obviously has a strong bent toward the old practice of "seek and destroy" coaching, that is, instead of encouraging good behavior, leaders should seek out trouble makers and punish them. The problem with this approach is that it could backfire and create disgruntled workers. And we all know that an unhappy worker is far less productive than her counterpart.
In order to make his case, the VP of Climpson ought to provide some compelling evidence that the "seek and destroy" method actually does work in the proposed way. Will internet monitoring actually have the intended effect of strengthening morale? Prior to the presentation of this evidence, we must prudently decline to decide on a course of action.
Vocab
Fortuitous (adj.) happening by chance; propitious; prosperous; chance; fortunate; haphazard
- I would much rather get an answer fortuitously incorrect because of a guess on the GRE than get an answer marked wrong simply by not responding.
Gambol (v.) to dance or skip around playfully
- I would like to go outside and gambol with Laura; however, I must study so that I can do what I want to do with my life.
Lachrymose (adj.) teary; weepy
- The women left the man's house in such a lachrymose state that the neighbors wondered whether he had broke up with her.
Peregrinate (v.) to wander from place to place; to travel (esp. on or by foot)
- I enjoyed Europe the most while peregrinating through the streets looking in shop windows and passing closely by the pedestrians.
Rebarbative (adj.) causing annoyance or irritation
- The black and yellow stripes on some creatures has a rebarbative function; other creatures are warned that they ought to stay away from such audacious colors.
Venerable (adj.) respected because of age
- As a human institution, some people surely venerate marriage simply for its perpetuation of our connection to the past.
Livid (adj.) discolored as by a bruise; colloquial: furiously angry
- Stuck in a stupid bureaucratic meeting, the livid man watched out the window as his car was ticketed by the parking authority.
Cloy (v.) to satisfy beyond desire
- Cloy yourself and cure yourself of your rapacious want
Issue Task
Students
should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.
Write a response in which you
discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and
explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting
your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might
not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
According to the great German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel, "the human spirit wins its truth, when, in utter dismemberment, it finds itself". Lesser philosophers often make cryptic statements like this with little concern for how they will be interpreted; but, not Hegel. Hegel has given us lengthy books meticulously explaining what he meant by this claim. As the founder of the discipline of critical theory, a discipline that teaches students how to think critically, and question authority, Hegel would surely give the following interpretation to his claim. People learn best and achieve excellence most often when they struggle with the content of their learning. Let me explain.
Some people believe that students should not question their teachers and the truths that they purport to communicate.
Consider two situations. Imagine that a college freshmen fresh out of high school walks into a college level algebra class and begins to disrupt the professors lectures with his challenging questions. Some might think that this probity of the student ought to be squashed immediately.
Now, imagine another case. An untraditional American teen decides to skip college altogether and take a job working under the sun as a roofer. As an apprentice, some might think that it would be quite impudent for this boy to challenge and question the job foreman's methods of laying shingle. Surely, this sort of question would only halt production and slow economic growth for the company.
However, in both situations, there are strong reasons to believe that the students are providing an excellent opportunity not only for themselves, but for their elders that have years of experience to share. On the one hand, by questioning the algebra instructor or the expert roofer, the student exposes his own ignorance and paves the way for the instructor to obviate this glaring lack in their pupil. On the other hand, it provides an excellent opportunity for the instructor to renew their passion for their field by rehearsing their immense knowledge and expertise. Surely, it would be a sad state of affairs if the elders in a community were unwilling to help the younger generation in their efforts to grow and ultimately develop the "company". We can, then, dismiss the alternative to questioning authority.
But, what, then, are the reasons for maintaining that students ought to question what they are taught? As the previous examples demonstrate, it must be the case that questioning received wisdom helps to solidify knowledge and increase skill. And this is exactly what Hegel meant in his cryptic claim that we win our truth in our struggle. Think back to a time when you personally may have struggled with a difficult math problem or a problem of organizing a home. Without a doubt, by struggling with the content of your beliefs and the beliefs of others about how the problem should be solved, you firmly encoded into your mind various solutions, and sometimes their pitfalls, and in this way, paved the way for your own unique and artful solution. This, then, is the strong reason why we should always accept the challenges of students. They are, first and foremost, and may I add, admittedly, learners. They are, therefore, in the business of finding out their problems, and solving their problems. If we are unwilling to help them by allowing them to challenge our claims, then we are certainly bad neighbors and educators. And in that case, we would not be able to hold ourselves up as examples of excellence in human development.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Argument Task timed 30 minutes
The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing.
"Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulty obtaining reliable supplies of high-quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of our popular alpaca overcoat. Now that we have a new fabric supplier, we should resume production. Given the outcry from our customers when we discontinued this product and the fact that none of our competitors offers a comparable product, we can expect pent-up consumer demand for our alpaca coats. This demand and the overall increase in clothing prices will make Sartorian's alpaca overcoats more profitable than ever before."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
There are at least four key questions that need to be addressed prior to assessing the Vice-President's message that the company should return to manufacturing the old alpaca coat line. Without addressing these issues, investors and the board are cautioned against any hasty decisions.
First, the vice president does not clearly state that the company stopped making the overcoat because they did not have reliable suppliers for high quality wool. It very well may be the case that there was a correlation between the company's halt on manufacturing the overcoat and a lack of suppliers for wool; however, this correlation may just be coincidental. For instance, it may be the case that the company stopped making the overcoat because demand dropped and also because the supply for wool was unreliable; but, this connection does not entail that necessary connection between these two events. For all we know, the lack of a reliable supplier for wool may have been a blessing in disguise five years ago. To be blunt, the previous reasons for the halt will be required prior to assessing the vice-president's prediction.
Second, information concerning the materials used in manufacturing the coat is lacking in the vice-president's pronouncement. Was wool in fact a key material in creating the overcoat? Unfortunately, we are not given this information. Consider what would happen if the overcoat contained less than 0.1% wool. In that case, it just does not seem likely that the reason the company stopped making the coat was because there was a lack in reliable wool. Prudent advice to an investor required to make a decision on the information supplied by the VP of the company would be to demand more information on the raw materials for the coat.
Thirdly, styles change rapidly. A general rule of thumb in the fashion industry is that last year's demand is not reliable indicator for this year's consumer desire. Bringing a style back from the past requires much more than simply placing it on the shelf. Advertising and marketing ideas must be prudently developed and released to the pubic. Imagine what would happen if a major retail chain attempted to, in one full swoop, bring back the top hat from the early 19th century. It's just not likely that styles can survive their grave. Prior to making a decision, investors and the board of the company must gather input from the marketing teams at work in the company.
Lastly, does the new fabric supplier carry the raw materials needed for the coat? Of course, the implication of the VP is that the new supplier is critical in our plans to bring the overcoat back onto the market, but consider what might happen if the new supplier does not even carry the product to meet our needs. In that case, our past efforts involving the marketing team would be in vain, and the time investing in bring the coat back to life would surely be wasted.
Prior to making a decisions regarding the message, the company is cautioned against approving the imperative of the Vice President to bring back the 5 year old clothing line.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Vocab
August (adj.) solemnly grand; sublime; majestic
- The ancient Philosophers look'd upon this Universe as one August Temple of God.--H. More, 1664
- There is generally in Nature something more Grand and August, than what we meet with in the Curiosities of Art.--J. Addison, 1712
Disaffect (v.) to lack affection for; to dislike
- Zarathustra's disaffection directed toward the two party system of his home country was coupled with his disaffect for the cultural hegemony of anti-intellectualism at home; subsequently, he moved into the mountains and lived among the wild goat and sheep.
Egregious (adj.) prominent; remarkable in the bad sense: gross; flagrant; outrageous.
- The amount of waste created by some savages in the developed world is an egregious insult to the conscientious naturalist.
Jaunty (adj.) easy and lively in manner; well-bred liveliness
- Levi was playful as a pup, and his back story painted him as a jaunty dog filled with life and springing from good genes.
Waggish (adj.) like a wag (n.) a mischievous boy
- In the play, The Magistrate, John Lithgow's character plays alongside a character by the name of Cis Farringdon, a waggish boy who does not know his real age.
Euphony (n.) the quality of having a pleasant sound
- The euphonic elements of Ludovico Einauldi's newest composition are in stark contrast to the popular new releases of Miley Cyrus and Korn.
Ebulliency (n.) the quality of being ready to boil, bubble-over, or overflow; also of drugs ebullient (adj.) producing agitation or heat
- As the heroin addict light the flame underneath the spoon, he eagerly awaiting the ebulliency of his chemical preparation and the ebullient rush he would receive after an injection.
Lambasted (v.) to beat; thrash (from lam-baste, both meaning to beat soundly)
- In the early morning hours of January 1, 2009, not only did BART police lambast Oscar Grant; tragically, they shot him dead.
Foment (v.) to promote the growth of; to encourage or stimulate the development of; also to bathe with warm or medicated lotions
- Socrates was unjustly accused of fomenting corruption among the youth of Athens; not unjustly accused, some of the wealthy Athenian men were certainly fomenting young boys in the bathe houses of Athens.
Perfidious (n.) guilty of breaking faith or violating confidence; perfidy (n.) untrustworthy; deceitful
- The lawyer brought in character witnesses to assassinate the testimony of several key witnesses to the murder; afterwards, it was not at all possible to see any untainted by perfidy.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Vocab
Torrid (adj.) scored; burned; exposed to great heat (esp. in the torrid zone, the region between the tropics)
Perseverate (v.) the verb form of perseveration (n.) the act of persevering; persistence (esp. in the psychological sense of continue an action even in the absence of stimulus)
- In the tropic zone, where the heat does burn, I found my blackened soul, charred, making its home among the inhabitants, dark as coal.
- After several attempts, the hungry little mouse perseverated and furtively dined on a block of cheese.
Mitigate (v.) to alleviate or give relief from; to inhibit or counteract; to lessen the trouble caused by
- Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantaneously increase to any amount. --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Contention (n.) strife; the act of striving together in opposition
- Ingmar Bergman's movie Persona dramatizes the contention between two aspirants when only one role is available and each repudiates the others claim to the role.
Mellifluous (adj.) flowing with honey-like substance; sweetened with honey; (fig. pleasant sounding; flowing; musical)
- Economist 20 July (Review Suppl.) 11/1 A visitor to Germany..is bound to notice the presence, in almost every small town, of a local Brauerei whose mellifluous product is available in the neighbouring inns.
- Not only was Pooh a honey-loving bear, but as heard on the radio, his mellifluous voice soothed many anxious children awaiting Christmas during the early 90's.
Truculent (adj.) savage; cruel; fierce; ferocity
- It is commonly believed that the Yanomami people in the Amazon rainforest are one of the more truculent indigenous peoples and that internal and external warfare is a quotidian aspect of their life.
Quittance (n.) the action of freeing from a debt
It is highly unlikely that the truculent state of affairs in the middle east will cease without universal quittance from past wrongs and adoption of neighborly norms on all sides.
Exigent (adj.) requiring immediate action of aid; pressing (n.) state of pressing need
- Money and all that it symbolizes has obviated the exigent demands of being an animal; instead of seeking shelter, or food, or warmth, man in a symbolically saturated marketplace is driven by the impatient desire for capital.
Aggrandize (v.) to make greater; to increase; to increase the power, status or wealth
- By social capital, I mean the products that are used by people to aggrandize their self-image in their own mind and the perception of others. Such social capital is adorned on the body, such as a watch or ring, or advertised through speech, such as the brusque mention of degrees of higher learning. Social capital can bolster relationships and aggrandize their productive capacity for the user. There is no image for social capital because other authors complicate it by situating the concept within an abstract philosophical space. Social capital is primarily the result of treating identity as a tradable commodity. It violates the norm of authenticity since it uses aspects of identity in a mechanical way to secure or repudiate access to others of valued goods. As such, social capital is abject bastard product of consumer capitalism, and the domination in social relationships of metaphors related to money.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Vocab
- Arrogate (v.) To claim and assume as a right that to which one is not entitled; to lay claim to and appropriate (a privilege, advantage, etc.) without just reason or through self-conceit, insolence, or haughtiness.
- The current government in the United States has arrogated to themselves far too much power over our personal life.
- Dogged (adj.) This word seems to have 2 senses in use. The first sense is negative and it means "having an air of sullen obstinacy"; the second sense is neutral and means "having the tenacity or characteristic persistence of some breeds of dogs"
- Hoping to increase his store's revenue, the dogged sales clerk obdurately performed his chicanery on every person that walked in the door.
- Consummate (v.) to bring to completion; to finish; to accomplish; also, to make a marriage complete by act of sex
- The graduation ceremony consummated the man's long struggle with learning.
- Dissension (n.) disagreement in opinion, especially that which brings strife or contention
- The dissension in the United States stems partly from the lack of modesty on behalf of the atheistic science community and partly on the educated--albeit reticent--theistic citizens.
- Obeisance (n.) Homage or submission to a person in authority; deference towards an acknowledged superior; respectfulness of manner or bearing.
- In an attempt to demand obeisance from the young man, the older gentlemen treated his personal narrative on the art world as a picayune anecdote to their otherwise important conversation about the cost of paintings.
- Extirpate (v.) to root out, to exterminate, to totally destroy (used with of and from)
- Capitalists set up puppet democracies in an attempt to extirpate from the minds of the people any alternative to capitalism.
- Panegyric (n.) a person who writes a eulogy; a speech in praise of something or someone
- Ludovico Einauldi's newest album seems to my ears to be a panegyric hymn to the interminable strength of the human spirit and will.
- Veracity (n.) the quality of trustworthiness as manifested in a person or individual (used with of)
- It is quite rare to find veracity of businessmen in competitive markets.
- Enervate (v.) to weaken physically
- The alcoholic beverage enervated my mind.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Vocab Building
If you have found this blog because you are preparing for the GRE, then I want to recommend something that I wish I would have found about 30 days ago, when I seriously started working on my vocabulary. Access the Oxford English Dictionary online edition via your schools library. For me, it was simply, I went to my schools library webpage, did a search for the OED, found the link, typed in my library ID number and password and I was on the OED online. The entries are so much better than dictionary.com or websters.com. The OED is not only more detailed, it gives interesting information about the
- Dilatory (adj.) tending to cause delay; made for the purpose of delaying time or deferring decision or action
- The computer was created for quite the opposite of dilatory role it now serves in many consumer's lives.
- Melancholy (n.) a mood state of sadness, introspection, or dejection
- Mournful: expressing sorrow; inducing sadness
- Plaintive: expressing sorrow or melancholy
- Soporific: tending to cause sleep
- Quiescent: not active or activated; in a state of repose
- Torpor: state of rest or hibernation
- The funeral induced melancholy, which the children counterattacked by smoking marijuana.
- Middling (n.) a middle thing, a median (adj.) of moderate quality
- The middling hours after awakening but before working are the best time, in my opinion, to relate to your significant other. This is the time during which you can express love and dedication and let your partner know that your thoughts are with them while you are away at work.
- Squall (n.) a discordant or violent scream
- Despite my attempt to obviate noise, the obnoxious squall of the woman at Dunkin' Donut's was penetrating through my ear plugs.
- Rapacious (adj.) inordinately given to taking; gluttonously greedy
- The rapacious hands of the children grabbed at the candy from the unattended basket.
- Notice how I'm using the word in a figurative sense since it is not their hand that are rapacious but their appetites, their minds, or their personalities.
- Inordinate (adj.) not 'ordered'; not regulated, controlled, or restrained
- Inordinate time is wasted with frivolous actions, usually of a dilatory nature.
- Perhaps a physiological illness in itself, an inordinate appetite is surely the cause of some cases of obesity.
- Salubrious (adj.) favorable or conducive to health
- Fruits and vegetables are salubrious foods made by God for his creatures.
- Irascible (adj.) easily provoked to anger; hot-tempered; passionate
- My irascible friend Brittney often finds reasons to burnish her vituperation against sensitive soul
- Dirge (n.) a song sung at the burial of, or in commemoration of the dead; a song of mourning or lament
- Dirge at an end, the departed is placed in the funeral bed (Virgil's Aened).
- Onerous (adj.) of the nature of a burden; burdensome; troublesome
- To some police officers its an onerous task, but Officer Schoolcraft enjoys walking the beat.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Lexicon
- Clement (adj.) lenient; compassionate
- The clement father forgave his daughter easily.
- Meet (v.) to come together (n.) an assembly where people come together as in a "track meet"
- The woman arranged to meet with her father for the first time at a neutral coffee shop.
- Condign (adj.) well deserved; fitting; adequate
- Since the defendant was remorseless after having admitted to first degree murder, most agreed that the judge's ruling of a life-time sentence with no parole was condign albeit perhaps even a bit clement.
- Jocund (adj.) cheerful; merry; gay; blithe
- I would like to be described by the people that know me as jocund. My dog Levi is jocund
- Levi is jocund.
- Levi is jocund!
- Recondite (adj.) requiring special knowledge to be understood
- The vocabulary of Fodor and Palmarini's critique of simple minded Darwinism is recondite, albeit once the terms of the debate are understood, it is a very rewarding read.
- Metonym (n.) a figure of speech in which a word that designates one thing or concept is used for something that is closely related to it, i.e. "to count heads" for "to count people"
- Lakoff and Johnson distinguish between a metonym and a metaphor. While both provide tools for understanding phenomena, a metonym is special in that it coordinates between essential parts of things and the whole of a thing. For instance, a good example of a metonym is the following sentence. "I counted heads and one is missing." "Heads" in this context functions as a metonym in that it refers to individual people, but uses the word head to make the reference.
- The difference between metonym and metaphor is that when people use a metonym they typically do not intend to transfer properities concerning the source concept to the transfer concept; whereas in metaphor, people do tranfer properties of the source to the transfer. So, for instance, I might use "the crown" to refer to the king, but I don't think and intend for there to be any transference of crown-like properties to the king. But, if I say, "my father rules the house with my mother as the queen", then I do intend for some properties of kings to be tranfered when thinking about my father, which rules the house as a king and has a queen, my mother, for his bride.
- Synecdoche (n.) a figure of speech in which the part is used to name the whole or the whole is used to name the part
- Lakoff and Johnson group synecdoche and metaphor together. However, some people believe that there is a fine grained distinction between the two concepts. The example given earlier of "counting heads" is actually an example of synecdoche. My dad gave me a set of wheels. Here, "set of wheels" is a part of a car, and is used to refer to the thing of which it is a part.
- Homonym (n.) a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differing in meaning
- Sail and sale are homonyms since they sound alike but differ in meaning.
- Pugnacious (adj.) inclined to quarrel or fight; quarrelsome; belligerent
- My pugnacious mother made it difficult for my father to stick around during my childhood.
- Stalwart (adj.) strong or stoutly built; sturdy
- The stalwart cabin in the forest withstood the fierce winters resolutely.
- Doughty (adj.) steadfastly courageous and resolute
- The doughty hiker fought past the torrential downpour and mudslide to make it to the end of the trail.
- The witch goddess Circe fell in love with the doughty Odysseus and had him stay with her for a full year of feast before he was sent back to Itacha.
- Intractable (adj.) not easily controlled or directed; stubborn; obstinate
- Levi is an intractable dog; but with some patience and care, instead of controlling him, one can learn to work with him as a team member.
- Opprobrium (n.) the negative feeling (disgrace or reproach or blame) incurred as a result of shameful behavior
- The opprobrium experience by the parents of Miley Cyrus after her tweaking episode must have been colossal.
- Invective (n.) vehement or violent accusation; vituperation
- The invective speech against President Obama's healthcare reform plan performed by Ted Cruz in front of Congress caused considerable outrage among the American people and Cruz's constituents. He would be smart to avoid such vituperative claims in the future.
- Beguile (v.) to charm, divert, take away from something with trickery
- The little girl beguiled the candies form her mother, pleading with her big brown eyes.
- Cloy (adj.)
- I tend to cloy after I eat just a few chocolates or sweets. As a child I did not always have this problem, my desire for both was intractable.
- Cant (n.) speech that is insincere; or speech based on a private lexicon
- The attractive girl's cant was not appreciated by the boy who had worked up the courage to ask her to the prom.
- Plaintive (adj.) expressing sorrow or melancholy
- Henryk Gorecki's album Misere is a plaintive gesture toward the brutal fact of our mortality.
- Arresting (adj.) capable of attracting interest
- The street performers drumming was arresting.
- Attract (adj.) having the power of attracting
- Although the drums could attract, the street performer was unskilled and could not fetch a crowd.
- Intriguing (adj.) strongly captivating
- By making his single drum sounds like 10 drums, the intriguing street drummer captured a large crowd.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Some thoughts on the issues task of the GRE
The following statements of belief are taken from the websites of the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Libertarians. I had to select what I took to be the core claim of the Libertarians because they had several different claims. I believe that it was a felicitous decision since they claim that their positions are logically consistent, that is, that their claims follow from the simple premise provided. So, without anymore space wasted:
- Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.
- We believe in the power and opportunity of America’s free-market economy. We believe in the importance of sensible business regulations that promote confidence in our economy among consumers, entrepreneurs and businesses alike. We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
- The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
First, let's break down the claims into their constituent parts. Then, we will give ourselves a little bit of paraphrase of each belief that might help to highlight the differences between the parties.
- Democrats believe
- Groups are greater than individuals.
- The group is successful when everyone is given an opportunity to participate.
- The group is successful when everyone's participation is propionate to their ability.
- The group is successful when everyone in the group follows the same rules, i.e. common law.
- Republicans believe
- The American free-market economy is powerful.
- The American free-market economy provides opportunities.
- There are sensible rules that regulate businesses.
- Sensible rules that regulate businesses promote confidence among the participants in the American free-market economy.
- There are rules that are not sensible.
- Rules that are not sensible are called "interventionist policies".
- Interventionist policies allow a group to pick who wins and loses in the marketplace.
- Libertarians believe
- Each individual has the right to control his or her own body.
- Each individual has the right to control his or her own action.
- Each individual has the right to control his or her own speech.
- Each individual has the right to control his or her own property.
- There are two roles for the group.
- There group can help individuals defend themselves from force.
- There group can help individuals defend themselves from fraud.
Ok, that about sums up the views of each party. In my opinion, it looks as if the real differences between these beliefs amounts to differences in the beliefs of individuals concerning the role of groups, and the role of rules in everyday life. Implicitly, there are also some claims abut the effect of rules on groups, and groups on rules, and rules on individuals, and so on. There's a lot of really simple theoretical and oddly enough empirical questions that need to be questioned here.
First, how do you determine an individual's "ability"? Second, hat is the group trying to be successful at? Third, what is a "free-market economy"? Fourthly, is there an example of a sensible rule? Do sensible rules actually have the proposed effect of promoting confidence? Fifthly, what is a right? And finally, what is property?
Those aren't easy questions. Dissertations have been written on these concepts and entire lives have been dedicated to assiduously giving a full account of even simple properties that individuals take these concepts to have...i.e. The American psychologist John Bowlby's attachment theory might be read as a mediation on some of the empirical claims contained in the concept of property.
So, anyway, I'm not proposing a dissertation here. I just thought it might be nice to let someone see that these aren't simple questions. And our intuitions are blind here. Sorting this stuff out really requires some dedication and patience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)