RE: something to think about
Jim wrote: Dear God, Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? Sincerely, A Concerned Student Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God Not sure how I feel about this, but a friend forwarded it to me today. Dear Scholar, Why didn't you save the millions of people slaughtered by the Inquisition? Sincerely, A Concerned Student Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed to criticize religious dogma, Sincerely, A Saddened Scholar Like it or not, a common response to "Why is there so much violence in the school?" is "Because they took God out of the classroom." Yup. And a common response to "When can you get pregnant?" is "Only for a few days at the middle of your menstrual cycle." The fact that a response is frequent doesn't make it either accurate or justified. Points: 1. There is _not_ more violence in the schools lately--it only appears that way because it is occurring in middle class white schools, not poverty level inner city ones as it has been for years. There were _less_ children murdered in schools last year than there were during any year in the preceding decade (check the numbers at http://www.doj.gov for yourselves)--but because some (still a very small number of the total school killings) were in "decent" schools the public was left with the impression that the numbers were increasing. 2. If the "common response" is accurate, there should be considerably MORE violence in the schools in Russia, China, Cuba, Sweden, and other Communist or Socialist nations where any form of religious teaching at ALL is prohibited in the schools. That the opposite is true (no first or second world nation on Earth has the violence rate in its schools that the US has) is pretty strong evidence that the "common response" is a false one. I'm all for Jesus, but I'm not quite sure how to respond to that response. Try asking WHICH "God" should be permitted in the schools. Yours? Linda Wolfe's? That of a Muslim? A Wiccan? An animist? Who among educators claims to have the _wisdom_ to decide which religion offers teachings that are appropriate to our children--and which does not? Simply because the US is primarily Christian does NOT mean that Christianity should be treated any differently than other religions--but of the many people who call for "God in the schools," I doubt very many would permit their children to be educated with, for example, pagan moral values in the schools. "Which God?" may seem a strange response to the response--but it's an honest one. And if it can't be answered in a way that shows equal respect for ALL religions (including Secular Humanism and those which teach VERY different moral values from the ones held by mainstream Christianity) perhaps the only valid answer is "NONE." Rick -- Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
Re: Weiten or Meyers
Hi Mark. Not that this is going to help you, but I agree completely with your views. I have used Weiten's Briefer text for the last four years, and have been fairly satisfied with it. Am I completely happy? No, for the very reasons you point out. I do think there are other texts out there that are more friendly to the reader, but up to this point I haven't been willing to sacrifice readability for depth. Although I haven't used Myers, I have it on my shelf and I do like the writing style. One other suggestion -- have you considered the new Kosslyn text? Although I don't have a copy, I have seen a preview chapter, and I was impressed with the writing. It might be too high level for you, however. You might want to take a look though. At 10:14 PM 4/9/01 -0700, you wrote: I am having some trouble deciding whether to adopt Weiten's Briefer Themes and Variations (new edition out in summer) or Meyers Exploring Psychology (new edition out in summer). While I like Meyers full text, I find the Exploring version to be too simplified and lacking depth. I do however like the price of the Exploring edition. On the other hand, I am impressed with Weiten's Briefer Themes and Variations in terms of depth, but find the writing a tad less lively than Meyers. I teach general psychology at a Bay Area community college. Mark Eastman Diablo Valley College Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 * Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Penn State York 1031 Edgecomb Ave. York, PA 17403 (717) 771-4028 *
Students as customers
Some of you may find the following article of interest: C u s t o m e r s M a r k e t s : The Cuss Words of Academe By Craig Swenson who is Regional Vice President at the University of Phoenix It may be found at: http://www.aahe.org/change/so981.htm Some quotes from the article "The goal of postsecondary educators should be that every one of our graduates knows and is able to do what his or her degree implies. Our business, then, is learning-not offering courses or covering the material." "The assumptions upon which a learning culture depends are quite different from those for a culture emphasizing teaching. In the former, the student is at the center; in the latter, the subject matter. When student learning is the focus, the yardstick is not "Did I cover the material?" but "Did they learn what they should have?" A student (or employer) expects this. It is always the student's responsibility to learn, but the good sense of that must be met by teachers who will do everything possible to facilitate it." ___ Miguel Roig, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology Notre Dame Division of St. John's College St. John's University 300 Howard Avenue Staten Island, NY 10301 Tel.: (718) 390-4513 Fax: (718) 442-3612 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://area51.stjohns.edu/~roig ___ winmail.dat
Random Thought: Be Aware
Went out more than a bit late this morning. The sun on the horizon was already nestling among the budding branches. I am always amazed at the amazing things, the new things, the astonishing things, the touching things, the little things I see and hear walking the streets day after day, month after month, year after year when I am aware. Today it was a fallen pine cone forlonely lying in the middle of the street, a lone echineaca scouting the way for the others in the bed, an array of amaryllis trumpeting the spring, roses polka-dotting the landscape, a pile of grass clippings heaped on a curb, the rivulets of collected dew on the car window in my driveway, a clumsy bumblebee humming as it worked to borrow into the wood siding of my house, the metallic cadence of a woodpecker high above me rapidly drumming on a power generator, a squirrel jumping from branch to branch. At first, superficial glance, each seemed so unimportant, so trivial, so ordinary. And yet, with an awareness, there is nothing nothing small or insignificant or common about any of them. They all had a way of adding up to a magnificent experience. The ordinary become extraordinary. It is magic; it is mysterious; it is majestic. It wasn't always so. Until a decade ago, in another life, I was not completely open to these things. I was not totally listening. I was not completely seeing, I was not be aware. And, I sadly missed many grand things. I cut off from all this around me--and in me--and the magic, mystery and grandeur had yet to be born. And so it is in the world of academia. That is why I some years ago I enacted for myself and struggle to obey a set of awareness "rules of the road" to enforce my teaching credo: "constantly be aware that the classroom is a gathering of 'ones,' of diverse and individual and unique and sacred human beings." It is from which all the other rules flowed: "Care. Don't just mouth it, live it." "Focus on the student and his or her learning." "Notice the unnoticed." "No one's face gets erased." "No one goes nameless." "No one is left in the background." "No one is hidden in the shadows." "Every student is valuable." "Never treat every student in every class as the same." "Every student starts with a clean slate. Don't judge a student by the ring in her belly button or the tattoo on his arm or the whispers of other people or a GPA or the accent of her speech or the color of his" "Love every student. It's OK to be disappointed or even frustrated, but don't stop loving them as persons." Some have asked how I do that. With difficulty, I assure you. And, not always successfully. My usual answer is that I meditate before each class and focus myself. I do. Lately I have found that to be an inadequate answer even for myself, especially when I have back-to-back classes and have to shift gears without a second of hesitation and respite. How do I do that? I do that by struggling--and, once again, not always successfully--to teach hard with a light touch, soft eyes, gentle mouth, and a kind heart. I teach like that because I practice, practice, practice. What do I constantly practice? No, not technique or method or technology however important they are. And, I am not a magician with a mind-boggling trick or a card sharp with an ace up my sleeve. I constantly practice constant awareness: constant awareness of where I am, constant awareness of who I am, constant awareness of the surrounding circumstances, constant awareness of who each of the students are, constant awareness of the hazards and traps. Like some prey walking in a dark jungle, my eyes are constantly moving and my sense are constantly on full alert. To do that, I practice slowing, stopping, focusing, and being still. I practice listening, seeing, feeling, and being still. I started with struggling to be aware of something as ordinary as water. Slowly I was sensitive to the currents of saliva in my mouth. I was conscious of the and puddling on my eyes. I began to feel, what I came to swear was down to the molecular level, the emerging formation and flow of each globule of sweat. My seeing, hearing, sensing, and feeling swam the unimaginable sites and sounds and sights and forms of water everywhere and all around me: the shower, a cup of coffee, a glass of soda, a fountain, the fish pond, a puddle in the street, a water fountain, a water sprinkler, the drowning humidity. You will be amazed how slowly something as ever-present and common and ordinary as water becomes magnificently wondrous. Individual notes merge into a stirring symphony. Individual strokes appear on a spell-binding canvas. I assure that if you can master looking and being still, you will see. Sense and be still, and you will feel. Listen and be still, and you will hear.
Re: something to think about
Let's see what happens when we let God in. April 9, 2001 LDS Library Shooting Church Statement SALT LAKE CITY (AP) _ Here is the text of two statements from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church's governing body, regarding Thursday's shooting at the faith's genealogical library. PLACES OF WORSHIP TIGHTEN SECURITY Summary:A sanctuary is the most holy place in a church, but the word also means `place of safety.' When violence erupts at a church or synagogue, it seems to be a particularly brutal violation. And it happened again Wednesday, at a church in Fort Worth, Texas, where a man shot seven people before killing Dayton Daily News Date: 09/18/1999 PROVIDENCE - Violence broke out in the city late last night, with one young man seriously injured after he was shot in the chest on Smith Street, and two people were rushed to the hospital after a double-stabbing 20 minutes later at a church in Olneyville. The Providence Journal Date: 09/29/2000 SHOOTING-CATHOLIC Mar-7-2001 (360 words) Catholic high school shooting called shocking By Catholic News Service WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. (CNS) -- A Scranton diocesan spokeswoman called the March 7 student shooting at Bishop Neumann High School in Williamsport a ``sad and shocking'' reminder that violence can occur anywhere. Christianity Today, October 6, 1997 Sexual Abuse in Churches Not Limited to Clergy Coppell church accused of hiding sexual abuse Ex-deacon, 68, gets 10 years for molesting girl, 4 02/27/98 By Michael Saul / The Dallas Morning News Sexual Abuse Suit Against Catholic Church Goes Forward New York Law Journal July 30, 1999 BY CERISSE ANDERSON Because of the number of recent cases of child sexual abuse within the church community, insurance companies are demanding that it end. There have been about 3,800 such cases a year since 1992, some with huge financial settlements, according to Church Law Tax report, a publication that monitors such statistics for both churches and the insurance industry Kansas City Star Date: 05/05/1996 -Stephen While you normally provide exceptional wisdom and research, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Just because something violent happens in a church or other religious setting that defeats the "We need God in the classroom" argument. Puh-lease. People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next to them, or far off in the universe. If you're gonna knock an institution just because these things happened (and how often do these things NOT NOT NOT happen in those settings?) then let's close the freakin public schools, post offices, and government buildings. Ugh Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." **
Re: On buying a lottery ticket
Let's leave aside the "tax on the stupid" argument. Not because it's not fun, but because I want to divert the conversation. Lotteries are usually "sold" as state operations on the grounds that the revenue will be used to underwrite some worthy cause, oftentimes education. Since I'm cynical enough to at least wonder whether any political budget process is a zero-sum game, I worry. What do I worry about? I worry that at some point, probably in private, some staffer or legislator will say "they have their lottery money so we don't have to fund them or give them any more money." Do any TIPsters know of good data on whether educational systems are actually any better off in states with lotteries that are said to subsidize education? I guess the appropriate comparisons would be: ...compared to their status before the lottery AND ...compared to similar states without lotteries Cheers, Michael Renner
Re: something to think about
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Jim Guinee wrote: Just because something violent happens in a church or other religious setting that defeats the "We need God in the classroom" argument. Puh-lease. People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next to them, or far off in the universe. If you're gonna knock an institution just because these things happened (and how often do these things NOT NOT NOT happen in those settings?) then let's close the freakin public schools, post offices, and government buildings. [This was in response to a message from Stephen Black documenting violence in churches.] Stephen's post wasn't church-bashing, it was just pointing out that violence can happen whether or not "god is allowed in the building." Therefore the idea that more religion in the schools would prevent violence is clearly wrong. The logic of that is crystalline to me. *** Robin Pearce "The wit of a graduate student is like champagne. Boston University Canadian champagne." [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Robertson Davies ***
Re: class questions
I just got back from the local convenience store where I invested a quarter of my pay check in lottery tickets: just preparing for my retirement. With my "9-commandments plaque" (there's one that I still have some questions about) firmly affixed to the wall next to my computer terminal, I now am ready to respond to some teaching-related questions. Gerald Peterson wrote: I have noticed at various times that students having the most difficulty in class also have trouble locating material in the text and understanding questions I was wondering if others have found that students having difficulty in class really do not seem to understand the questions being asked? Is this just a problem in how questions are worded, or are their confusions tied to reading/listening comprehension? It struck me because those in the class having test difficulty were especially prone to such confusions. When students first enroll for courses at my school, they are supposed to take placements tests for writing, math, and reading classes. Whenever a student comes to my office and tells me that he/she has studied for the tests in just the way I have discussed during class and still they are getting D's and F's, I typically will look up their scores on the reading-placement test. In the vast majority of cases, they have scored in the range that places them into remedial-reading courses. In other words, the little evidence I have suggests to me that students who enter schools that have minimal selection criteria tend to have substandard reading abilities. When I question these students, they often tell me that much of the book is near-gibberish to them as are many of my test questions. I first noticed how difficult it is for someone to study from a textbook while I was helping my daughter (who was in fourth grade at the time). It is very difficult to learn to identify important points in a textbook reading, even when one's comprehension is good. It must be even more difficult when one's comprehension of written material is poor, as it seems to be for many of my students. When they take a test on this textbook material, their poor reading skills make it difficult for them to determine the meaning an intent of the questions. This is a "double whammy": they aren't understanding well the textbook and they aren't understanding well the test questions about the textbook material. I have written an intro-psych textbook that, I believe, should be understandable to people with relatively low reading skills; and I take care when writing my test questions not to use words that are too complex. But I am constantly surprised by poor vocabulary among my students. For example, I no longer use the word "adolescence" in my courses unless I specifically define it several times during class: many students have no idea what it means. It may be illuminating to give your students a reading-comprehension test and correlate scores on that test with scores on textbook material. Jeff -- Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213 9000 E. Chaparral Rd.FAX Number: (480) 423-6298 Psychology Department[EMAIL PROTECTED] Scottsdale Community College Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 "Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths" Karl Popper No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. Lily Tomlin Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS) http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html
Re: something to think about
[This was in response to a message from Stephen Black documenting violence in churches.] Stephen's post wasn't church-bashing, it was just pointing out that violence can happen whether or not "god is allowed in the building." While I'm a classic misinterpreter (always good when you're a psychotherapist), then how do we RESPOND to that argument with a better one? How do others tend to respond to the general public when asked "Why is there so much violence in the school?" Therefore the idea that more religion in the schools would prevent violence is clearly wrong. Clearly wrong? It's funny how we can't prove or disprove anything about human behavior. Except when it comes to religion. All of a sudden people seem to get pretty darn dogmatic... The logic of that is crystalline to me. Not to me -- there are far too many religious institutions dominated by healthy religious behavior that are seriously lacking in violent conflicts. I don't see any shootings in private schools (and yes, I know it can and unfortunately probably will happen if it hasn't already). How do you explain that? I hope I don't sound I'm starting to start a fight. That would be foolish, ironic, and immoral of me to get ugly with you or anyone else about the problems of school violence. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." **
Re: something to think about
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:10:05 -0600 Jim Guinee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I'm a classic misinterpreter (always good when you're a psychotherapist), then how do we RESPOND to that argument with a better one? How do others tend to respond to the general public when asked "Why is there so much violence in the school?" I say "much violence -- compared to what"? How many high schools are there in the USA? What is the percentage of high schools out of that total number in which shootings have take place? Tell me about another similar situation where you cram together lots of adolescents for long periods of times and then we can compare violence rates. Ken Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." ** -- Kenneth M. Steele[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA
Re: Why I buy lottery tickets
At 4:58 PM -0700 4/9/01, Weisskirch, Rob wrote: TIPSurvivors, Yes, lower income, uneducated folk buy lottery tickets. But, I buy them when I know I have a day full of meetings. I make an extra effort to buy one when I know I have those events I have to make an appearance at. This way, as the meeting drones on, I can fantasize about what I would do with my lottery winnings. Very effective coping technique! Why not just _fantasize_ that you bought the lottery ticket? ;-) * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: Students as customers
At 8:40 AM -0400 4/10/01, Roig Miguel wrote: Some of you may find the following article of interest: C u s t o m e r s M a r k e t s : The Cuss Words of Academe By Craig Swenson who is Regional Vice President at the University of Phoenix It may be found at: http://www.aahe.org/change/so981.htm Some quotes from the article "The goal of postsecondary educators should be that every one of our graduates knows and is able to do what his or her degree implies. Our business, then, is learning-not offering courses or covering the material." "The assumptions upon which a learning culture depends are quite different from those for a culture emphasizing teaching. In the former, the student is at the center; in the latter, the subject matter. When student learning is the focus, the yardstick is not "Did I cover the material?" but "Did they learn what they should have?" A student (or employer) expects this. It is always the student's responsibility to learn, but the good sense of that must be met by teachers who will do everything possible to facilitate it." Sounds like a false dichotomy to me! It's the _interaction_ between students and teachers that counts! * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
God and violence in the schools
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Jim Guinee wrote: While you normally provide exceptional wisdom and research, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Just because something violent happens in a church or other religious setting that defeats the "We need God in the classroom" argument. Puh-lease. People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next to them, or far off in the universe. I thought it was clear enough, as did Robin Pearce, but apparently not. Let's review. In apparent innocence Jim posted the following exchange, which I assume is hypothetical (in my experience, God does not drop by for a chat). For some reason I found the dialogue offensive. Here's Jim: Dear God, Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? Sincerely, A Concerned Student Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God Like it or not, a common response to "Why is there so much violence in the school?" is "Because they took God out of the classroom." The implication, of course, is that if they left God _in_ the classroom, there would be no violence. So I think it's fair to ask whether violence disappears when God is allowed in. All we need is a single counter-example, but I was able to generate quite a few with no trouble at all. Violence--in the form of murder and criminal sexual abuse of children--occurs in places where God is allowed in. So unfortunately, putting God back in the classroom won't help at all. Jim asked for help in responding to the claim that there is so much violence in the schools because they took God out of the classroom. I suggest he reply just as he did above: "Puh-lease. People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next to them, or far off in the universe." And in another post, for reasons that I fail to understand, Jim also asserted: I don't see any shootings in private schools snip How do you explain that? Once again, the Internet allows trivially easy refutation of that claim: http://rockypreps.com/shooting/0605priv6.shtml The National School Safety Center's Report on School Associated Violent Deaths included at least three incidents at nonpublic schools: In 1995, at Sacred Heart School in Redlands, Calif., 13-year-old John Sirola killed himself with a sawed-off shotgun after shooting Principal Richard Facciolo in the face and shoulder, the report states In 1996, Will Futrelle, a 16-year-old student at Mountain Park Baptist Academy in Patterson, Mo., was found beaten to death in the woods... In 1997 at St. Bernard High School in Playa del Rey, Calif., 18-year-old student Earoll Michael Thomas was found shot to death by the school track... Curious that all three of these incidents took place not only in private schools, but in ones where God was allowed in. Stephen Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's Universitye-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at: http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
RE: something to think about
Jim Guinee wrote: Just because something violent happens in a church or other religious setting that defeats the "We need God in the classroom" argument. Puh-lease. People can do whatever they want, whether God is right next to them, or far off in the universe. Thus defeating the "We need God in the classroom" argument, right? I think that you made the point exactly opposite to the one that you intended here. I suspect that you typed these last couple of posts in haste, right? They're not up to the quality of your other arguments. Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee
RE: On buying a lottery ticket
Michael, I don't have the comparative data, but I suspect that the state of Virginia will offer a case to support your point. As I understand it the proceeds from the state lottery are supposed to go straight into education. My reading of the state budget suggests that the amount appropriated from general funds is reduced to account for the amount gained from the lottery proceeds. That results in at best no gain, and perhaps a reduction in overall spending for education. (This year we have a governor who promised to eliminate a local car tax with state revenues that are no longer available so the drop in funding for education might be precipitous.) I believe that you will find that the state ranks fairly low when compared to other states with regard to education funding. Dennis Dennis M. Goff Dept. of Psychology Randolph-Macon Woman's College Lynchburg, VA 24503 -Original Message- From: Renner, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:59 AM To: TIPS (E-mail) Subject: Re: On buying a lottery ticket Let's leave aside the "tax on the stupid" argument. Not because it's not fun, but because I want to divert the conversation. Lotteries are usually "sold" as state operations on the grounds that the revenue will be used to underwrite some worthy cause, oftentimes education. Since I'm cynical enough to at least wonder whether any political budget process is a zero-sum game, I worry. What do I worry about? I worry that at some point, probably in private, some staffer or legislator will say "they have their lottery money so we don't have to fund them or give them any more money." Do any TIPsters know of good data on whether educational systems are actually any better off in states with lotteries that are said to subsidize education? I guess the appropriate comparisons would be: ...compared to their status before the lottery AND ...compared to similar states without lotteries Cheers, Michael Renner
Re: something to think about
At 3:31 PM -0600 4/9/01, Jim Guinee wrote: Dear God, Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? Sincerely, A Concerned Student Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God Not sure how I feel about this, but a friend forwarded it to me today. Like it or not, a common response to "Why is there so much violence in the school?" is "Because they took God out of the classroom." I'm all for Jesus, but I'm not quite sure how to respond to that response. First, does the statement "I'm all for Jesus" imply an equation of God with Jesus? If so, it is offensive. Second, if one believes in an omniscient and omnipotent God then he/she/it _cannot_ be removed from any place. Third, as the Supremes have made excruciatingly clear, there is no legal prohibition against prayer per se in public schools. The only prohibition is against prayers sponsored and promulgated by the school. If children are taught (at home or in church) to pray, there is nothing to prohibit them from doing so privately. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html*
Re: something to think about
Therefore the idea that more religion in the schools would prevent violence is clearly wrong. Clearly wrong? It's funny how we can't prove or disprove anything about human behavior. Except when it comes to religion. All of a sudden people seem to get pretty darn dogmatic... It's certainly a null hypothesis (i.e., "more religion in schools would prevent violence") that is probably untestable. I haven't come across any studies that would suggest we should reject the null (i.e., that more religion would NOT prevent violence) so, I assume the Null and no effect. That makes more sense. Thanks. So what is a testable hypothesis? What do we know, if anything, about this phenomeon? Seems like anyone with an opinion, especially simplistic, wants to give it. I'm not necessarily advocating a God argument -- and I don't like hearing it use so simplistically (like "take all then guns away!"). But, I would like to hear from some sophisticated, cogent theories. I don't see any shootings in private schools (and yes, I know it can and unfortunately probably will happen if it hasn't already). How do you explain that? Jim, did you miss this one cited by Steven or do you literally mean "see" ? SHOOTING-CATHOLIC Mar-7-2001 (360 words) Catholic high school shooting called shocking By Catholic News Service I missed it. But I did say "if it hasn't already." I knew I would be way off if I claimed "It doesn't happen in private schools. Nyyahh!!" I don't think it's so shocking it happened in a religious school. It reminds me of what my mother used to say about my high school (private Catholic). "Now, Jimmy, there are no drugs in your school right?" "Uh...right, mom." It certainly defeats the simplistic notion that automatic inclusion of the Almighty is a panecea for eliminating violence. Stephen already (and I missed that, too) pointed that out. I still maintain that eliminating religion from school is a predecessor to increased problems, but I obviously can't stand on a simple equation. Darn it. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! It comes bundled with the software." **
Re: God and violence in the schools
Jim Guinee has presented the standard argument, while not claiming it as his own, that things are so bad in schools these days because God isn't allowed in. After all, it is obvious to anyone that once those atheists got their way, kids started disrespecting their teachers. (If teachers were only allowed to use corporal punishment, things might have a chance of getting better!) Then they started disrespecting themselves, takin' them drugs and all. Then they started disrespecting each other, with gangs and Satan-worshippers and other lost boys shootin' up the schools. Stephen has done an excellent job of showing that problems occur in God's schools, so maybe the lack of God isn't the reason for the (apparent) increase in school violence. I have another hypothesis. Has anyone else noticed that these problems seemed to really become common shortly after the Blue Jays won the World Series? Foreigners screwing up the American pastime! No wonder that our children have lost their souls. (And notice that I am spelling "American" with a capital "A", as in "U.S.A.") -- * http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html * Mike Scoles *[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Department of Psychology *voice: (501) 450-5418 * * University of Central Arkansas*fax: (501) 450-5424 * * Conway, AR72035-0001 * * *
Re: morality and religion
At 09:34 PM 04/09/2001 -0400, Stuart Vyse wrote: Though it is an unpopular view, I, like Jim Clark, believe religion has no special hold on morality. Indeed, for me morality has always been the domain of philosophy, but I'll leave the details to Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College to explain his position on secular humanism below. I think this article may be relevant to a couple of related recent threads. Although Plato demonstrated the logical independence of God and morality over 2,000 years ago in the Euthyphro, the belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's ills - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. Although many fundamentalists trace the beginning of this decline to the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859, others trace it to the Supreme Court's 1963 decision banning prayer in the classroom. In an attempt to neutralize these purported sources of moral decay, fundamentalists across America are seeking to restore belief in God by promoting the teaching of creationism and school prayer. The belief that morality requires God is not limited to theists, however. Many atheists subscribe to it as well. The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, says that If God is dead, everything is permitted. In other words, if there is no supreme being to lay down the moral law, each individual is free to do as he or she pleases. Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no universal moral law. The view that God creates the moral law is often called the Divine Command Theory of Ethics. According to this view, what makes an action right is that God wills it to be done. That an agnostic should find this theory suspect is obvious, for, if one doesn't believe in God or if one is unsure which God is the true God, being told that one must do as God commands will not help one solve any moral dilemmas. What is not so obvious is that theists should find this theory suspect, too, for it is inconsistent with a belief in God. The upshot is that both the fundamentalists and the existentialists are mistaken about what morality requires. The Arbitrary Lawgiver To better understand the import of the Divine Command Theory, consider the following tale. It seems that, when Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, his followers asked him what they revealed about how they should live their lives. Moses told them, I have some good news and some bad news. Give us the good news first, they said. Well, the good news, Moses responded, is that he kept the number of commandments down to ten. Okay, what's the bad news? they inquired. The bad news, Moses replied, is that he kept the one about adultery in there. The point is that, according to Divine Command Theory, nothing is right or wrong unless God makes it so. Whatever God says goes. So if God had decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. Let's take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. If the Divine Command Theory were true, then the Ten Commandments could have gone something like this: Thou shalt kill everyone you dislike. Thou shalt rape every woman you desire. Thou shalt steal everything you covet. Thou shalt torture innocent children in your spare time. ... The reason that this is possible is that killing, raping, stealing, and torturing were not wrong before God made them so. Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other. Many would consider this a reductio ad absurdum of the Divine Command Theory, for it is absurd to think that such wanton killing, raping, stealing, and torturing could be morally permissible. Moreover, to believe that God could have commanded these things is to destroy whatever grounds one might have for praising or worshiping him. Leibniz, in his Discourse on Metaphysics, explains: In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act. Leibniz's point is that, if things are neither right nor wrong
Using the number of Internet hits as data
Jim Clark wrote: Personally, I am skeptical as to the need for religion in order to promote moral living, but other far more notable figures than I appear to believe otherwise. Below is a link to a paper by David Myers on the subject. http://www.christianityonline.com/ct/2000/005/6.94.html An interesting article. There was one point that grabbed my attention. An argument was made that claimed that there is a growing "spiritual hunger" in the US and other countries. Of course, it is difficult to provide supporting evidence for this argument since most of the relevant evidence, it seems to me, can be interpreted in various ways. Although I believe that this claim is a plausible one (and I even suspect that it is true), I don't know how credible it is. One piece of evidence in support of it was stated as follows: "This spiritual hunger is manifest all about us: [a number of observations are provided here]; on the Internet, where Alta Vista finds 'God' on 3.6 million pages." This seemed to be an interesting type of evidence--one I decided to think about further. I am serious about this: I wanted to consider the value of this type of evidence because I have seen such data used before to support arguments. (To be fair to David, this was a very, very minor part of what he was trying to say; so this post should not be seen as implying anything about his argument, even though I was not convinced by it.) My suspicion was, however, that this type of datum generally is uninterpretable. I think that what I present below supports this conclusion. Intrigued by the large number of hits for "God," I searched Alta Vista for other words that deal with broad areas of interest to people. Here are my results in order from highest to lowest number of hits: education--37,611,800 entertainment--34,742,390 science--29,882,895 money--21,443,855 sex--15,131,880 literature--8,676,995 religion--8,499,610 politics--8,129,545 philosophy--5,369,865 spirituality--1,533,065 If we interpret these results in the manner typical for those who use such results as evidence, then it's good to know that education is the thing that people are most concerned with in life, although it is not far ahead of entertainment. (It probably would be best if we could combine the two in some way. We'd really have something then.) Science has a very respectable showing, it seems to me. Money is a distant fourth and is even ahead of sex. Religion seems to be somewhere down in the muck with politics; and spirituality, the newest buzz word, is not even in the running. I then thought I would examine actual entities, since this was the original evidence referred to. Again, from highest to lowest number of hits: Jesus--5,787,445 God--5,022,040 Buddha--1,112,750 Beatles--474,215 Madonna--354,290 Backstreet Boys--318,989 Britney Spears--266,052 Allah--240,370 William Shakespeare--164,241 Plato--145,950 Marilyn Monroe--117,186 Socrates--112,347 Richard Nixon--83,023 Oprah Winfrey--65,890 Sigmund Freud--60,331 George Bush (both father and son together)--57,379 Albert Einstein--50,302 James Dewey--23,337 Hugh Hefner--10,653 James B. Conant--7,771 Monica Lewinsky--5,834 Soupy Sales--2,413 Jeffry Ricker--42 (and not all the sites listed were about me, which is true of some of the people listed above, too) So here, when we focus on actual entities, religion comes to the forefront, way ahead of educators, entertainers, and scientists (and me). Jesus edged out God for the top spot. Interesting to see that the Beatles are not bigger than Jesus. I guess burning all those records worked. Educators and scientists now are down in the muck with politicians. Well, I'm not sure what to make of all this except to say that I think I'll refrain from collecting such "data" in the future whenever I try to support a position. Jeff -- Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213 9000 E. Chaparral Rd.FAX Number: (480) 423-6298 Psychology Department[EMAIL PROTECTED] Scottsdale Community College Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 "Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths" Karl Popper No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. Lily Tomlin Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS) http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html
Autism/Asperger's in the movies
TIPSters-- This weekend I saw a preview for "The Luzhin Defense," about a 19th-century chess player with Asperger's-like symptoms. Can anyone think of other movies in the past 5-10 years or so that featured characters with autistic, Asperger's, or savant-like symptoms? Assistance is appreciated. Thanks! Robin *** Robin Pearce "The wit of a graduate student is like champagne. Boston University Canadian champagne." [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Robertson Davies ***
Anyone need a room mate for WPA?
I have a student who wants to go to WPA in Hawaii--is there anyone who would like a roommate for a few nights? She really needs to cut down the cost. (She appears to be clean and of good hygiene and does not smoke.) Thanks annette Annette Taylor, Ph. D. Department of PsychologyE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of San Diego Voice: (619) 260-4006 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 "Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get." -- W. L. Bryan
RE: something to think about
Jim wrote: While I'm a classic misinterpreter (always good when you're a psychotherapist), then how do we RESPOND to that argument with a better one? How do others tend to respond to the general public when asked "Why is there so much violence in the school?" How about with: "Perhaps because there is so much violence in our media." Therefore the idea that more religion in the schools would prevent violence is clearly wrong. Clearly wrong? It's funny how we can't prove or disprove anything about human behavior. Except when it comes to religion. All of a sudden people seem to get pretty darn dogmatic... Er, Jim . . . Dogma is an integral part OF religion--why should only the religious be permitted to adhere to dogmatic positions? It isn't dogmatic to argue that claims to the effect that school violence would be reduced or eliminated by the presence of "God in the schools" is clearly contradicted by the evidence that even in institutions where "God" is the _focus_, violence still occurs. The logic of that is crystalline to me. Not to me -- there are far too many religious institutions dominated by healthy religious behavior that are seriously lacking in violent conflicts. And there are plenty of schools where the most violent behavior occurring is school yard play. I don't see any shootings in private schools (and yes, I know it can and unfortunately probably will happen if it hasn't already). How do you explain that? Gee, I can't think of a single way to do so, Jim. After all, poverty level minority kids attend expensive private schools at the same rate that affluent white ones do, don't they? BTW, not to burst your bubble too loudly, but not all private schools are religious in nature--according to your arguments there SHOULD be shootings in the ones that are not. Yet there are no more acts of violence in secular private schools than there are in religious ones (probably far less if we count the MANY cases of child molestation in "Christian" school settings and the use of corporal punishment in many "Christian" schools as "violence in the schools"). Thus, from any rational and objective perspective, the presence or absence of religious training or orientation in the schools does NOT have any direct correlation to the existence of violence in them. You're a scientist--apply the rigors of science to the claim that "inviting God into the schools" will eliminate (or substantially reduce) school violence and you'll rather quickly see that the claim simply has no evidence to support it. Rick -- Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
