Two things. First, it has been demonstrated that research finds what the researchers are looking for. Using logic and cold hard fact gathering often produces exactly what we'd like it to prove. Instinct however tends to only prefer one answer.
And second: Now that the research is published it is this sort of finding that will have a huge ripple effect over time on the choices that families make. I would imagine a counter study will be launched and the issue will take on new legs around marriage,same sex marriages, single parenting, etc.
For now I am sticking with instinct, and I suspect, so will the mothers of a lot of happy babies.
What has happened over time is that I am getting requests from people I don't know, that through someone linked to someone else have found my name and wish to add me to their contacts list.
The idea of using technology to broaden my social/business networks seems attractive. Any change that increases the opportunity to communicate needs to be explored. In this case though I don't think I'm quite ready to jump on board. It feels too 'virtual', like chat rooms and instant messaging where there are no sensory experiences that build trust.
If the social networking folks, like LinkedIn, could hook up with the folks over at Skype, and maybe throw in a bit of webcam.... Hmmm.
I read through a lot of information every day; News from mainstream, opinion columns, press releases, industry news, and blogs (with opinions on all of it). And while reading what the blogs are reporting on I have felt an less than positive undercurrent I couldn't quite put my finger on... until now. The undercurrent I have been feeling is the aura of entitlement in the words and opinion of too many bloggers.
Case in point; Mark Jen gets fired at Google, and in his own words, understands the position and actions of Google even if he does not agree. But, in posts like here, and here, other bloggers have come down on Google as if Google was behind everything evil in the world and scream about how unfair everything is.
Another case in point; A person wanders into an art gallery and is told that pictures of the (for sale) art work are not allowed (story here). I imagine in the original context of what was happening was that the writer found a humorous photo and wanted to share it with friends, and wanted to be in the picture with the art. But after the oh-my-goodness rude treatment by the store manager, SUDDENLY, we have a cause!
NOW the story is about bad marketing and lost opportunity and others have jumped to the 'cause'. Never mind that in writing her rant she did not link to the artist or offer up any support to overcome the shortcomings she was so concerned about, nor was she in the gallery on the artists behalf in the first place.
It's this aura of entitlement that bloggers have started to wear. It sometimes feels like we are being dismissed as silly if we don't see things their way. Their opinions are stated as facts, and anyone else with facts that disagree are told they are offering biased opinion. It's high school, the in-crown and clubs all over again. People are told they are stupid, talked down too. Too many of the bloggers arguments and rants have a whole lot of 'what's wrong with you is...' and not enough, 'here is my take on this topic'. It's blaming and shaming on a grand scale.
The blogsphere is still relatively small. The number of people that even know what a blog is remains a small percentage compared to other, more pervasive technologies or means of communication.
I’d like to believe that the blogging community comes to know that being read by a lot of people does not make a person right. It just means they are (for the moment) popular. We are not entitled; people don’t have to listen or agree.
Having said all of that I’m certain my little corner of readers will review my prior posts to make sure I’m not violating my own opinion.
Last year a study was released demonstrating that the recent increases in glacial retreat has a starting point far earlier than the capability for mankind to have caused it. In fact the glaciers have been receding for thousands of years. But in the ever present need of mankind to point fingers at something or someone they can control, the dear folks at WWF, the global conservation organization have found all sorts of means to keep firing shots to keep their agenda alive.
Everything they report sounds so credible that it's silly for us to question their findings. Of course the Himalayan glaciers are receding, and yes, it does mean that solutions to that water crisis need to be found. But rather than focus on the problem they hijacked it to prove their own point.
It is so terribly true that mankind has made a mess of the atmosphere and it must be addressed quickly. What never flies with me though is using someone else's pain for gain or attention.
His state-of-being was fed by immersion in doom. It makes sense that such a man would be drawn to a church preaching a manmade doctorine of fear. Obviously he was far from normal, not as evidenced by the life he led, but by his final actions.
The christianity I am familiar with is a faith of new beginnings and hope. Waving a Bible inside four walls does not a church make. A church is born of people connecting to the message of God. In the case of the Sabbath for the Living Church of God, they have been built on a message of man. I will pray for the victims, and, for the members that remain.
Oh yah... their rant of the moment; Stop the evil President Bush and his drive to change Social Security!
Here are the very people that DO have control of their future. Who DO NOT need the safety net of outside assistance. These people are so far removed from the reality of anyone that does or will depend on assistance... it just seems stupid.
What these people are expressing is a feeling about politics, but they've chosen a cause that is hypocritical for them to represent. From the lap of luxury and privilege they want to convince us that their life is miserable because of the evil policies of the current American President.
I remember when ideology seemed the most important thing to me. I guess I don’t remember how silly I must have looked.
Over at NewScientist.com he's decided that Michael Crichton's latest work of fiction, State of Fear, is a real-time manifesto aimed at derailing the global warming movement. I am certainly not qualified to know which end is up in the debate on global warming, but I am qualified to know the difference between a manifesto and a book of fiction written to entertain.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU JEREMY that you need to beat your chest and cry foul over a story written and presented and fiction. Catch that key word. F-I-C-T-I-O-N.
Change is a tough thing. An issue as large and lengthy in effect as global warming has/is/will create difficult choices, will be pushed back at, questioned, studied, and debated for generations to come. And like all big issues of any time, the story tellers of the day will use current news as a foundation for creating their tales.
While looking for the evil that prevents people from switching to your power-feed (it does not escape my attention that your paycheck comes from your environmentally friendly solar energy company) try looking in the mirror. What many of the loudest of activists don't seem to understand is that by their very radical and in-your-face attitude about what people should do and think, they turn off and turn away the audience they pursue.
Put the book back on the shelf Jeremy and go fight for reform in the world of non-fiction.
Something really bad happened. A bunch of soldiers, barely beyond their parents grasp in years, were given responsibilities far beyond their moral maturity, and through innuendo and the calamity of the moment reverted into sordid and cruel bullies.
As a young Marine I can remember how I too felt untouchable. Young people in military service are given the greatest power of all. To take life. Anything less than that, at the time you’re living it, almost seems OK. But what they did was not.
Then you have activists and drama-mongers who must have someone to blame – and they’re pointing their finger at the evil leaders in the Pentagon and their ‘policies of terror’. “Of course,” they say, “People don’t do these kinds of things on their own. Someone made them/taught them/forced them to do those terrible things!” “These were just sweet innocent, God-fearing men and women that we sent to war and you corrupted them!”
And of course, those guilty jump at the chance to take the mantle of wrongness from themselves and place it on someone/thing else.
Abuse, cruelty and meanness is around us all the time. Mankind is quite capable of doing such terrible things. That is the way it has been since the beginning of time. The difference for those soldiers in
I think Boing got it right. A person does not put on a different set of character traits as they step between work and home. Who we are, what we believe, what we will and will not accept, how we treat others, how we think, and our morality is universal to work and home. If I am capable of lying to a friend, than it makes sense that I am capable of lying to a co-worker or boss. If I demonstrate disdain for others through lifestyle choices, then my disdain will most certainly be present at work.
The most uncomfortable change in society in the last several decades has been a rising militant insistance that the rights of an individual preclude any greater good. At what point can reason and reasonability be recognized?
Technorati Tags: Change, Society, Ethics, Morality, Lifestyle
One particular statement he makes is worth thinking about: "Over the past century, traditional morality has been discarded in favor of personal morality. Subjectivism in art means the death of art; subjectivism in morality means the death of a functioning society. Amorality - the lack of objective moral standards applicable to everyone - quickly devolves into immorality. "
I could not agree more. A successful society works because, as naturally herding creatures, we maintain our respect for the herd. We are a part of it, not the other way around. Though we exist as individuals we can only survive with others.
In the current "state of society" the people wishing to promote personal morality will say that it's working. They'll ask you to look at all of the individuals who live and act in such and such a manner and everything seems to be working out just fine.
What I believe is really happening is the balance of morality beliefs still leans toward "traditional" and it is this part of the "herd" that allows the others to survive. While one portion of the people continues to hold the fabric of our society together, a smaller, but growing part gets to bounce around with indifference, ignorant that their freedom to "be" is supported by the people they would hold in disdain.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm going to head back to the herd now.
Technorati Tags: Change, Morality, The Gates, Art, Society
So far removed we became dependent on the militarys to report on themselves, or on war correspondents that were heavily guided by networks and governments. Of course, if the battles are in your backyard the story is quite different.
What has changed recently is access. Once again we have opportunity to experience, witness, and know. Through technology and social pressure we can know what is real. For each person effected by any war this change could be wonderful or catastrophic. What is important is that we have a choice. Gunner Palace is just such an effort to show more than just news clips.
Video games stand accused of all sorts of bad things. They promote violence, they curtail the physical growth of our youth, they turn people into video addicts, they inhibit the development of social skills, they are packed with mind-bending subliminal messages, and finally, they are the evil tool of greedy corporations.
I think I'm liking the report findings a lot more than other worried guesses.
Technorati Tags: Change, Parenting, Video Games, Pain, Society
The big question that comes to mind is: Why is it wrong for people to go where people want to go?
If a citizen of another country enters the United States with the goal of living and working here, but does not participate in all of the checks and balances we’ve created (regulation, taxation, education, etc.) to keep our country socially and economically healthy, then definitely there is a problem with consequence on American citizens.
If a citizen of another country enters the United States with the goal of living and working here, and does participate in the system we’ve established, then I am at a loss to understand what has been harmed.
The whole idea that governments “own” their citizens is archaic enough. Participating in the rules of a country you reside in has merit and benefit. “Ownership” becomes apparent for many when they try to join another country. Some countries do not allow its citizens to move or join anywhere else. The majority of countries make the process of joining onerous and complicated.
As the world we live in becomes smaller and smaller (by virtue of technology and awareness) we will have to rethink what geographic boundaries represent, adjust our attitudes about the movement and freedom of people, and work towards unification of understanding. Right now it appears that governments are fighting like crazy to make old thinking work in a new world.
I personally believe democracy is the answer. Allowing “the people” to choose within an self-established and ordered social structure has produced some pretty wonderful results. I don’t believe it is one man’s (or governments) place to tell another man where they can live. I do believe we should be able to expect that anyone choosing to live here would honor the rules and structures that make this Country great.
Technorati Tags: democracy, change, society, immigration, freedom
At Caltech researchers are studying the effects of marketing on the human brain and along the way are getting "a glimpse at how the brain assembles belief." In application, this sort of understanding could create significant and long lasting change in our world. And maybe not for the better.
I am a marketer by profession, and as such, I think a lot about what other people are thinking. If I want people to sit up and pay attention to something I'm marketing then I need insight to what might cause them to do so. If Caltech succeeds in their research, my job will be a walk in the park.
Instead of using intuition and hope, I'd know. My marketing campaign would be built with triggering elements to insure that my targeted buyers have no avenues of choice but for the one I want them to make. They could no more escape my manipulations than choose not to breath, and all along the way my targets would believe they are making the choice on their own.
So what happens when our 'will' is no longer 'free'? Even worse, what happens in our society when we don't even know our will is no longer free?