jpahmad

Thanks for the discussion. I think things would be a lot easier if we could discuss these things in person.

Has anyone read this book. It is very enigmatic and beautifully written. It deals a lot with the issue of freedom. I wonder if someone can analyze the book from am anarcho perspective.

Let me work through this: Doctor accidentally or purposely severs a major artery during surgery in order to cure patient (A). Same Doctor has chosen not to perform one of several surgical procedures that would for sure cure patient (B). The Doctor is able to save patient by severing a major artery and killing the patient? (C as a result of A) I don't get it.

I think reading the entire study would be more helpful for me. I don't think you phrased anything wrong with your initial post. At least, it wasn't shocking or provocative to me. It just seemed like you wanted to talk about this experiment. That being said, I think there is a contradiction in the premiss. It goes like this: Those who value personal gain as happiness will ultimately become unhappy because they will feel lonely and isolated. To simplify the equation; Those who seek A for happiness, and not B, will ultimately become unhappy because they will not get B. Why would they become unhappy if they didn't want "B" in the first place? Am I missing something? I think there is a "switch-a-roo" semantic thing going on. Which is why this experiment seems "screwy" to me. It seems like the type of thing they just wanted whip up to publish in a magazine in order to get readers.

Thank you, that was enjoyable this morning.

super.bueno, your ancestors killed somebody for wealth. You might have to go back several generations, but you'll find it: murder, genocide, and exploitation. All our ancestors did these things. You wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for these horrible events in the past. Your inheritance is life. Does this mean you owe anybody your life?

Thanks!

so one group is told to value happiness and the other group is told to value accurate judgment. But they're told to value accurate judgment, because it leads to happiness. See below "People who report higher than normal levels of accurate judgment experience...overall health and well-being" I substituted accurate judgment for happiness in the above quote. So they have to value health and well-being on order to value accurate judgment. Both groups are valuing happiness. (I'm equating health and well being with happiness)

I'm only happy when my child is happy. How could this cause isolation between the two of us? Or, I value my own happiness, which is directly tied to my child's happiness. How did they induce the participants of the experiment to value happiness?

something seems really screwy with this study

so do the results of the experiment suggest if you value happiness, you will become lonely or do they suggest if you are happy, you will become lonely? what if connecting with other people is the only thing that makes you happy?

Yeah, the definition of happiness as stated in the premise is extremely myopic.

O.k., it seems to boil down to the fact that if children are raised peacefully and not forced to go to government schools, there would never be any need for bribery in the first place. I agree with this. In fact, if parenting is done right, there almost seems to be no chance that the child won't want to learn to read intrinsically. But it still could happen. Stef claims he has bribed his daughter with skittles when trying to get her to read. So there is one example right there. I suppose he could have just decided to wait another year and see if she's more open to it, but what's the harm in negotiating with her? Please tell me what the negative effect of this interaction would be?

cab21, we both agree that many kids enjoy learning to read right from the very beginning, even from the age of 4. This is because it is intrinsically rewarding to them and they feel gratification while doing it. Can you tell me why some kids dread the process of learning to read? Walk into any elementary school and you will find this is the case. dsayers, I think it is a time-sensitive matter. If you had a kid and they show no interest in books, at what age would you start to panic? And Let's assume you have done everything a caring father or mother should do in helping their children, i.e. reading to them, buying material they're interested in etc..and they still show no interest. Unschooling does put forth that the child should learn something when they become interested in learning it. That is the main principal and one I stand by completely. With reading, I'm not being hypocritical though. I'm simply trying to facilitate their interest with negotiation, not force.

Well, yeah, I guess I would just give up after a while and let the kid be. But...99% of the literate world (you are part of the 1%) learned to read by being bribed. We know that bribing works. Just follow these two rules: 1. empathize with the child by making it clear that you are bribing them to do something that they have a good reason not to like 2. If the kid doesn't accept your bribes/negotiations, don't force them to do it. With proper empathy and good technique, it will not fail

who's talking about force?

She's not doing the 4 miles because...I don't know, I'll have to ask her. Who's to say they will ever have the desire to do it intrinsically? Do you have the intrinsic desire to be a pro-wrestler?

O.K., as far as bribing the kid to read, you're banking on the fact that reading is ultimately an enjoyable activity. Therefore, if this is true, the kid will experience joy form reading. He has to in order for the statement to be valid. However, it is also true that learning to read is not an enjoyable activity, otherwise Billy wouldn't complain about doing it. So, two truths have to be agreed upon before we move on. 1. Reading is an enjoyable and rewarding activity for human beings (I'm assuming they're reading about something they like) 2. Billy does not enjoy learning how to read. Notice the difference between the act of reading, and the act of trying to read. Two different things. Billy doesn't like trying to read. Can you blame him? Its extremely laborious. So, how do we get him across the bridge from the laborious road of "learning to read" to actually reading? Two ways, negotiate (which is the same as bribing someone who knows they're getting bribed) or wait until they have the desire to do it themselves. Now, dsayers, if our first truth from above is truly correct. If reading really is enjoyable in itself, then Billy will immediately enjoy his experience when he begins to read fluently regardless of whether he has been bribed to get there or not. And, he will value the experience of reading even without the candy. Therefore, Billy will continue to read without the bribe. What do you think?

no problem dsayers. In fact, bribery can be damaging to children...if they don't realize they are getting bribed. This is usually, if not always the case in elementary school. Grades are bribes, stickers are bribes, every sort of reward system is a bribe, no doubt about it. However, the difference between bribing adults and bribing kids is that adults know they are getting bribed. In the adult world, there is a fine line between bribery and negotiation. In fact, they might even be the same thing. For kids though, bribery is more like manipulation, maybe even coercion. This is very bad. Don't worry though. You can circumvent this horrible thing by simply telling the kids that they are getting bribed, and then bribe them accordingly. It is that easy! Quick example: "Hey little Billy, I know you don't want to read that book because it is hard and not fun. I agree with you Billy, right now it is hard and not fun (empathy). But it will get easier and more fun really soon. It will get so easy, that you will soon want to read all the time. I know it's hard to take my word for it, but if you give it a chance and work on reading your words for 20 minutes, I'll give you some candy. In fact, I'll do this candy deal with you for a month! And, after a month, you will magically begin to like reading without candy!" Hopefully the kid will start to like reading after a month. If not, then....your screwed.

dsayers, On Sundays I like to run 4 miles. My neighborhood is a loop of 1 mile. So after the third mile I just pick her up and run the last one with her. She generally wouldn't go without me, and we would usually combine our run with a walk afterwards so we can talk about things. During the week, I sometimes run twice in one day; once by myself at my own speed, and once with her at her speed. But now, she goes out there on her own. She prefers to run in the morning and I hate running in the early morning. So I guess you are saying that my story doesn't negate Alfie Kohn's theory? Is his theory only applicable to a certain age?

LovePrevails, concerning Alfie Kohn, I love reading his articles, however, I am not totally convinced yet that bribery is completely ineffective in getting an individual to enjoy an activity for the sake of the activity itself. In some cases, it absolutely does, however, I have thought about it quite a bit and have come up with a few examples of how bribery can be effective in tricking someone into enjoying the target activity for it's own sake. I'll put one out there right now. Let me know if there is an error in my reasoning. 1. I tell my wife that if she runs a mile with me on Sundays, I will give her a 20 minute back massage. I do this, because although she always enjoys running once she is out there, and happy that she has done it when we are finished, there is a certain amount of resistance to it every Sunday. However, this doesn't mean that her not wanting to do it is a result of a rational thought process, it's just an emotional one. So, I use the reward of getting a massage to over ride the initial resistance to getting out there and beginning her run. Now believe me, once she is out there, she really gets in to it. Here's the punchline. I did it for about five months, her endurance increased and it became more enjoyable for her to run. Now she doesn't dread it as much at all, and get's out there and does it on her own- without my bribe. She now has experienced how running is enjoyable in itself. The activity is now intrinsically rewarding. Does this refute Alfie's premise on bribery always devaluing the target activity?

I avoid the staff room at all costs. Imagine saying those phrases like "thank god its Friday" every week for 40 years. My god, what kind of existence is that. I love my private students. I have almost 30. They all come to my house for lessons. Many of them have been with me since I started the business four years ago. Once I quit the government job, I can open up more time slots for lessons. That is what I want to do. I want to stay home, develop my skills, play piano, learn about new things, and teach my students. The question is, how much income can I generate? I'd love to hear your idea. Although, I'm not that computer savvy.

creakins, I'm going through the same exact thing right now. I teach music in the public schools and am long past my expiration date. I've been building up my own private studio for the past three years and just about at the point where I can switch. But now that I'm almost there, I'm starting to get terrified. It 's so refreshing to hear that someone else is sharing my experience. However, I can hardly bear to go into that school building everyday.

You should read the book Forced Founders by Woody Holton. It pretty much sums it up.

At this point, I'm not trying to make this scenario analogous to Syria. First things first - I just want to know how you regard the possible choices presented above in my over-simplified hypothetical situation. I don't want to connect anything to current events right now. The question still stands. Is it ethically incumbent on one individual to intervene when another individual is being harmed? If so, to what extent? Should the individual who is helping be required to sacrifice themselves? Or, should they only intervene when the chances of survival are in the "helper's" favor? Even more. Should the helper just be satisfied to call 911, or are they ethically required to charge down the man with the knife? What about all the steps in between?