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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)