Kristjan’s Comments (group member since Mar 12, 2008)

Kristjan’s comments from the Think [the box] ing group.

Shannon wrote: "Is teaching unionised in America? I'm just surprised at how shitty it is for you there, Rebecca, and yet the profession is usually unionised. Here, for example, your base salary is determined by yo..."

Teaching is actually one of the more powerful unions in the US. In fact, the union is frequently cited as one of the most significant roadblock to educational reform. While starting salaries are typically very low ... that usually changes pretty quickly as they get more experience. This is also scaled by specialization and age categories ... where the secondary stages (such as High School) make a fair amount more than those in primary education, which has a less complex cirriculum.

rebecca j wrote: "But they are only continuing education classes - they are not required to attain another degree to keep practicing! Continuing education can be anything from workshops to actual college classes - ..."

With the noted exception of accountant, in order to even GET there you have to have an advance degree. You do not in order to teach (most just require a BS/BA to start ... not even that for private schools). In addition, once a teacher gets a PhD ... THEY don't have to get another degree either (cause they ain't one).

rebecca j wrote: "Doctors and lawyers, accountants and dentists, don't have to keep taking college classes to maintain a license to practice their professions ..."

Incorrect ... there are continuing education requirements for each of these professions if they wish to stay certified.

Shannon wrote: "The big thing in education news this week is the Ontario Ministry of Education's decision to have, on their website, information on the test scores, socio-economic backgrounds etc. of the students ..."

Well, I would have to disagree extensively. Let's start with testing ...

Education represents the sum total of an individuals experience, both in and out of a classroom. This ... as the article tries to point out ... is not a consumer good or product; it is a social characteristic or concept which helps to determine our productivity. Like the environment, the armed forces, etc. Everybody has one ... so what? Of course, you could bring in a discussion about Quality here ... but you see, that would also require a means to measure said quality and then to improve it. To date, the only metric we have that at least has some legitimate correlation success is in fact testing. You may not like it, but that is what we have. It is imperfect ... but that is what we have. And to equate test results as SOLELY the result of testing taking ability is an absurd argument on its face. Ability is a factor, but it is by no means the dominate factor here. The alternative is not to measure quality at all ... which of course would mean that we would have absolutely no really means to determine if a particular method, technique, curriculum was succeeding (and I have seem some incredibly ridiculous stuff passed as educational theory in the past). Testing should not be used in competition between organizations or even between students … it should remain a measure used by administrators to determine if THEY are succeeding (i.e. improving their process), not the students; because it is impossible to control all the environmental variables that impact these scores.

Competition … I would like to state for the record here that the Armed Forces of the United States is fiercely competitive, almost to the determent of teamwork in some cases (especially the officer corps with their up or out policy … where they throw out a significant percent of their officers when they don’t get promoted on time). While Mr. Salutin displays his master of logical fallacies in his attack against equating education as a consumer good, he completely sidesteps the issue about whether or not competition increases productivity … whether or not what you are producing is a winning performance on the pitch or a collection of experiences known as an education or even a VW Beatle … does competition improve what you are doing? Keep in mind that it is not really competition is one side does not actually have a chance of winning right? So … given that we have a fairly significant amount of data that shows a lack of competition is truly detrimental to productivity … it seems pretty clear that competition in some form is a necessary component of any system to realize its potential. To return to education as a consumer good … it is not; however, educational delivery services most certainly IS! And what we are really talking about is the ability of our community to delivery the best education possible for the resources provided … so to restate the Post … if the quality of the education system did not benefit from competition (generally through consumer choice), then it would be the only human endeavor which failed to do so …
\
In answer to diversity on NCLB reporting … the categories are there not because there are a metric with which to predict failure but because there are an environmental factor for which the student has no control and should therefore not be discriminated for it. These factors has huge impacts on educational delivery and ultimate success and should highlight areas for increased resources or other mitigation policy.

EyeOfTheStorm|RONI wrote: "Perhaps it is just a personal view then; I feel that I can believe or not believe, but not know for sure, while you feel that you do know. "

I think this is more of a semantic debate then anything else. I can say that I know G-d exists and that would be true (or a truth) from my perspective; however, what I can't do is prove it from a rational stand-point. Those who demand such rational support wouuld generally not know whether or not G-d exists ... generally known as agnostics. Those who deny the existence of G-d know this is true in the same manner that I know it is false :) The on;y thing this really indicates is that the domain of knowledge is in fact subjective (and most of my experience to date would support that claim).

Because the government should not be rewarding poor descisions (most of the city is below sea-level ... not really the best place to build)?

Because there exists a market solution (insurance) that was already in place prior to that should be used instead?

What should the government do? Short term disaster relief (which I will admit should have gone a lot better). But rebuilding private homes with public money? I'll pass.

Except that for many, the definition has already changed, making any distinction between the two an academic excersize. From your source:

It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government;


The fact is that the original definition in its earliest form is simply a government that is not a monarchy with respect to the executive. The term has evolved to be virtually interchangable with democracy for the vast majority of english speakers. Simply trying to shoe-horn all use of the term democracy into ONLY direct democracy is to make use of the term completely pointless as there are no pure direct democracies (it is not practical beyond a small town or city population). There are hybrids of course ... such as the US.

The US has elements of a Constitutional Democracy, Consensus Democracy, Representational Democracy, Social Democracy and Republican Democracy ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic...

What part? The government should Not be rebuilding New Orleans. Of course, they should not be bailing out banks and manufacturers either :(

Sure ... A Democracy is a nation governed by the People or their representatives. A Republic is a nation without a King (technically speaking).

Unfortunately no ... and to make matters worse, even IF you managed to get somebody with your views elected within one of the two major parties, if they don't toe the party line once they take office they are effectively puinished for stepping out of line by the leadership. That is just how power works :(

I think US participation would be higher if we had a proportional representation system instead of 2 party rule; as it is, I really have no voice for my opinions in politics because neither side comes close to what I believe. It gets to be discouraging when you only vote against (lessor of two evils) something ...

What happens to folks who don't vote?

Shannon Kristjan, I think so - is the IOC naive or what? ;)

They certainly seem to be in this case ... of course, when Iraq disbanded a reportedly corrupt National Olympic Committee, the first thing the IOC did was bann Iraq from the games stating that they would not tolerate government interference? Right ... 'cause the IOC is so obviously above politics I want to scream sometimes.

Shannon said: I remember something about Beijing being constantly refused the Olympics because of their poor human rights record, but in the end the IOC caved to their persistance (or was it something else?).

I believe that the IOC thought that the games would encourage China to change because of the increased World attention and their desire to make a good impression. It is not the first time the West has failed to fully understand the Chinese society.

Shannon said: Also, it just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't appreciate the valuating of animal life in terms of what use humans can make of them. Animals aren't here for us to exploit.

Of course this begs the question of why Are animals here? ;) Any takers?

Trevor said: You clearly said "We evolved this way". So, show me how we evolved this way without it being related to our genes.

And what exactly do you think the reference to 'memes' actually was? This whole concept is about social evolution that is not primarily dictated by genes.

I don't believe it is correct, common or even possible.

Fair enough ... we disagree on that point. Sort of makes any further debate pointless ...

Trevor said: I have read The Selfish Gene and will be very interested in reading the passage you seem to believe is in that book in which Dawkins says that systems of belief are genetically determined.

You have got to be kidding me ... I have gone out of my way to state repeatedly that belief systems are NOT genetically determined. Why do you keep returning to this concept?

And secondly, it would make the reason for him coming up with his ‘meme’ theory for the cultural transmission of ideas at the end of that book seem like a waste of time – if such a function was already served by the genes, what was the point of memes at all?

Again ... you ask for an example of something that is not genetically determined and then provide such an example within your argument? Is this because you so hopelessly want to believe?

And to show that this is genetic and not just socialization you say:

"That fact that a belief in God is demonstrated in isolated populations indicates that such is a common human activity that does not require intergroup socialization ... in fact, the frequent exclusivity of said beliefs often preclude such."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...

Ref 1a. ... nature does not imply genetics; you don't get that until def #8.

Intergroup socialization does not exclude intra-group socialization, which is pretty much required for humans to function at any advanced level of cognitive ability. This does not indicate that belief systems are genetic; however, it does appear to support a predisposition (def 1.b) toward such behavior when placed within a social context.

Trevor said: I would be very interested to hear where this supposed ‘consensus’ you assert arises from. You know, the one that regards ideas (such as the existence of a god – however ill-defined) as being determined (and thereby capable of providing an evolutionary advantage) on the basis of segments of DNA that produce proteins.

Are you intentionally mischaracterizing my argument or are you truly ignorant of how the evolutionary algorithm may apply to more than just genetics? I intentionally and very specifically did NOT reduce any part of my argument to DNA. That pretty much invalidates most of your rant ...

I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for a better understanding of what the hell I am talking about. :)

Trevor said: I would have thought that a definition that was different for each person was not really a definition at all. Definition means “a formal statement of the exact meaning of a word” – and exact means precise. Your ‘definition’ appears to be neither a formal statement nor precise.

That is because I did not define G-d ... I merely presented a rough idea of the function of G-d found within many belief systems. Again ... I did this intentionally because individual experience makes it difficult to capture the required paradox needed to form the transcendent concept for each person. You may not logically conclude from such that an individual is free to change their definition based upon whim or the moment ... In fact, you will find each personal definition of G-d to be rather inflexible, regardless of your experience in debating the subject with others.

Trevor said: You say that the fact that people will do extreme things for the sake of their God is proof that the existence of God is not obsolete and is a fundamental human need. But many people will do as much to get hold of a particular record of Elvis Presley’s or a signature of John Lennon’s.

Really? You have an example of this? Not a very convincing strawman IMHO.

Trevor said: Kristjan we are talking about a non-existent being. There is no deep end.

Strike two :) I am not arguing about the existence of G-d ... merely whether or not a belief in him is obsolete. IMHO this belief serves an important social function that evolved because it helps a given gene pool to survive by keeping group definition small ... your attempts to apply this globally miss the mark.

relyt said: What is this God thing that people are arguing isn't 'obsolete'? Does it have any attributes at all other than other vague terms like 'love'?

During the thread I've read assiduously to see if anyone actually offers a definition of God that stands on its own without being reducible to some other concept. If God is love or if He is the universe, then we don't need a separate concept for God in the first place.

Simply put ... the definition and concept of G-d is different for each person. The basic idea is that G-d is a transcendent image of self that enables us to establish a social synergism and potentially obtain some higher level of control over our environment. This multi-valued definition is not easily contained within typical human language constructs, so we use overloaded symbols to help us create the required paradox for the 'sacred' experience.

relyt said: "A belief in God is not obsolete, it is positively dangerous."

I'm afraid this is what people are not getting. People want the social approval that comes with believing in God, but they don't want the moral responsiblilty for the consequences. In other words, they want something for nothing.

That is patently absurd.

If you truly wish to demonstrate that a belief in G-d is dangerous, then you need to clearly define behaviors for which the PRIMARY causal factor is said belief. Using asocial behaviors displayed by a clear minority of believers doesn't work ...

Trevor said: And as for Kristjan saying He is programmed into our genetic code - Thank God I'm one of the luckily 'more highly evolved' humans (it appears we make up some 15 - 23% of the population) who can live peacefully in society and not need this genetic dysfunction. Given Northern Ireland (where two communities that both believed in the God child Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour and who went about killing each other gleefully for over three decades) I find it a little insulting to suggest a belief in god is necessary to bring communities together - all contemporary evidence suggests the very opposite. Unless you are suggesting that flying planes into buildings is a way of bringing communities together?

Obviously not as highly 'evolved' as you seem to think ... since you completely missed the point of my argument :) Let me know when you are ready to swim in the deep end ...