Saturday, October 09, 2004
What should they teach in public schools?
The short answer: things that the kids'll need in their adult life... all of those things that can be taught in school BUT don't require ridiculous expenditure to teach... and nothing else. When the taxpayer is footing the bill, every penny should go towards producing real value; private schools can be free to have their own standards, as long as they don't take public $, and as long as they ARE teaching the basics, but public schools need to provide something of value to the public, in the form of kids that can hold down jobs thanks to what they've been taught.
What will our kids need to have successful adult lives in America?
1) Fluency in English. If we allow kids to reach adulthood not being able to speak the language that business is done in in this country, we have failed them in the worst possible way, because virtually no one will hire them.
2) The ability to read and understand what they've read (aka "reading comprehension"). There aren't many non-menial jobs for those who can't make sense of the written word.
3) The ability to express themselves clearly and accurately in writing. We're in big, BIG trouble with this one, if what I see online is any indication; a horrifying % of people posting can't spell, don't know how to make a plural, or capitalize, or punctuate, and have no clue whatsoever as to grammar and mechanics... and no, spellcheckers are NOT enough to make up the difference. In most offices, the workers have to write up a variety of things, and raises and promotions do NOT go to those who can't put 2 words together such that someone reading them doesn't recoil in dismay.
The top 3 are so crucial that you can make a case for nearly the entire school day to be taken up with just them for those kids who aren't up to snuff.
4) Basic math. Arithmetic (+-*/), a grasp of fractions and decimals, enough geometry to do things like calculate the square footage of a room, and enough simple algebra to do things like alter recipes to feed different #'s of people... and that's IT. Math beyond what's actually necessary SHOULD be available as an elective, for those who want to get into science, engineering, etc, but there's no benefit to forcing everyone to take it.
5) Computer use. We're rapidly getting to the point where anyone who can't use a computer will be considered illiterate, so every student should know the basic workings of a modern PC, how to use all the common programs, especially Word, and how to get around online, with emphasis on how to track down information.
6) Life skills. Kids should learn how to balance a checkbook, make a budget, write a resume, fix a leaky faucet... all the little things that adults are expected to know how to do that parents aren't bothering to teach kids any more.
7) Health. Nutrition, the dangers of smoking, drinking and drugs, and disease-avoidance are important... but the biggie is Sex Ed. Any child who doesn't know how babies are made, and how to prevent it, and how AIDS gets transmitted, and how to reduce the chances of getting it, is at terrible risk, and most parents don't know the facts, much less have the time and willingness to pass them along.
And that's all they need.
I can hear the protests now: what about science, history, languages? My reply is: Why should we keep teaching those things, just because YOU were taught them? Have you USED any of that stuff? Do you know anyone that has? While these are all worthy areas of knowledge, they are NOT necessary for the overwhelming majority of adults, and so shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayers... at least, not for everyone. You can make a case for having science available as an elective, which kids who can pass an appropriate math test could be allowed to take, since we DO want kids to go into the sciences, but... what careers are there in history and languages, other than teaching those things? You can't make a case for even having them available.
What about art and music? Well, let's see: How many people make a living as artists? You can make a case for teaching GRAPHIC arts, as there's some $ in that, and the computers will already be paid for... but art supplies are expensive, and the taxpayers get no return for them. Music has been shown to help with math, but once we've eliminated most of the math, what's the point in having kids blaring away on the French horn (or whatever) instead of learning skills that they'll NEED?
Geography and social science? No jobs require them, so what's the point?
Home economics... does that even exist any more? It's a good idea for kids to learn basic cooking and sewing skills, but the cost is prohibitive, and it's too easy to get through life without knowing that stuff these days... so, no.
How about electives that teach a worthwhile skill, like auto shop class? If the $ is there to fund it, a class that gives kids a skill they can make $ with upon graduation is a good idea... but that's a pretty big IF, when you can't guarantee that any of the kids will need or use those skills. This is probably a no, except in those poorer neighborhoods where many kids would certainly use the skills if they had them.
And gym class? Kids are supposed to be running around and playing on their own... why do we have to pay for the equipment for them to do all these different sports? My memory of gym class is that, by the time everyone had changed clothes, and roll call was done, and we'd marched along to whatever field we were supposed to be on and set up, we'd have about 10 minutes for the athletic kids to mess around with a ball while the rest of us watched, and then it was time to gather everything up and head back to the locker rooms... where's the benefit of THAT, not just to the taxpayers but to the kids themselves? If it can be shown that kids need some exercise during the schoolday, which is unlikely as most kids have been doing nothing but stand around during gym class since it was invented, have them all power-walk, or do aerobics, or anything that doesn't require a bunch of expensive equipment for only a handful of kids to use.
Why even bother to suggest such a big change? The point of education used to be to stick a bunch of info into kids' heads that they didn't need and would never use, or even remember for the most part, because "we the people" thought it was a good idea to do so (why, I have no idea)... and all it cost was a pittance given to the one teacher who taught every subject to every grade, so why not do it if it made parents feel like they were bettering their kids? Education is EXPENSIVE nowadays, though, and there are many things that kids NEED to know to be successful in adult life that can realistically be called the responsibility of the schools to teach them, so we need a totally different concept of what a school should be doing with the taxpayers' $.
Yes, the idea of learning just for the sake of knowing is a nice one, but it's not practical in today's world. Under my proposed system, anyone who wanted to learn subjects not taught in school could do just what they do NOW under those circumstances; read and learn by themselves, and later on take courses in college in that area (think how many subjects there are that are already only taught at college level, and note that no harm has come from it). Not many people would have the courage to publicly "admit" to this point of view, but I've got to wonder; if people were allowed to VOTE on this issue, knowing that their tax burden would be based on what was being taught, and that the ability of the kids to eventually pay taxes depended on what they'd learned, how many would be willing to pay for subjects that don't teach practical knowledge?
What will our kids need to have successful adult lives in America?
1) Fluency in English. If we allow kids to reach adulthood not being able to speak the language that business is done in in this country, we have failed them in the worst possible way, because virtually no one will hire them.
2) The ability to read and understand what they've read (aka "reading comprehension"). There aren't many non-menial jobs for those who can't make sense of the written word.
3) The ability to express themselves clearly and accurately in writing. We're in big, BIG trouble with this one, if what I see online is any indication; a horrifying % of people posting can't spell, don't know how to make a plural, or capitalize, or punctuate, and have no clue whatsoever as to grammar and mechanics... and no, spellcheckers are NOT enough to make up the difference. In most offices, the workers have to write up a variety of things, and raises and promotions do NOT go to those who can't put 2 words together such that someone reading them doesn't recoil in dismay.
The top 3 are so crucial that you can make a case for nearly the entire school day to be taken up with just them for those kids who aren't up to snuff.
4) Basic math. Arithmetic (+-*/), a grasp of fractions and decimals, enough geometry to do things like calculate the square footage of a room, and enough simple algebra to do things like alter recipes to feed different #'s of people... and that's IT. Math beyond what's actually necessary SHOULD be available as an elective, for those who want to get into science, engineering, etc, but there's no benefit to forcing everyone to take it.
5) Computer use. We're rapidly getting to the point where anyone who can't use a computer will be considered illiterate, so every student should know the basic workings of a modern PC, how to use all the common programs, especially Word, and how to get around online, with emphasis on how to track down information.
6) Life skills. Kids should learn how to balance a checkbook, make a budget, write a resume, fix a leaky faucet... all the little things that adults are expected to know how to do that parents aren't bothering to teach kids any more.
7) Health. Nutrition, the dangers of smoking, drinking and drugs, and disease-avoidance are important... but the biggie is Sex Ed. Any child who doesn't know how babies are made, and how to prevent it, and how AIDS gets transmitted, and how to reduce the chances of getting it, is at terrible risk, and most parents don't know the facts, much less have the time and willingness to pass them along.
And that's all they need.
I can hear the protests now: what about science, history, languages? My reply is: Why should we keep teaching those things, just because YOU were taught them? Have you USED any of that stuff? Do you know anyone that has? While these are all worthy areas of knowledge, they are NOT necessary for the overwhelming majority of adults, and so shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayers... at least, not for everyone. You can make a case for having science available as an elective, which kids who can pass an appropriate math test could be allowed to take, since we DO want kids to go into the sciences, but... what careers are there in history and languages, other than teaching those things? You can't make a case for even having them available.
What about art and music? Well, let's see: How many people make a living as artists? You can make a case for teaching GRAPHIC arts, as there's some $ in that, and the computers will already be paid for... but art supplies are expensive, and the taxpayers get no return for them. Music has been shown to help with math, but once we've eliminated most of the math, what's the point in having kids blaring away on the French horn (or whatever) instead of learning skills that they'll NEED?
Geography and social science? No jobs require them, so what's the point?
Home economics... does that even exist any more? It's a good idea for kids to learn basic cooking and sewing skills, but the cost is prohibitive, and it's too easy to get through life without knowing that stuff these days... so, no.
How about electives that teach a worthwhile skill, like auto shop class? If the $ is there to fund it, a class that gives kids a skill they can make $ with upon graduation is a good idea... but that's a pretty big IF, when you can't guarantee that any of the kids will need or use those skills. This is probably a no, except in those poorer neighborhoods where many kids would certainly use the skills if they had them.
And gym class? Kids are supposed to be running around and playing on their own... why do we have to pay for the equipment for them to do all these different sports? My memory of gym class is that, by the time everyone had changed clothes, and roll call was done, and we'd marched along to whatever field we were supposed to be on and set up, we'd have about 10 minutes for the athletic kids to mess around with a ball while the rest of us watched, and then it was time to gather everything up and head back to the locker rooms... where's the benefit of THAT, not just to the taxpayers but to the kids themselves? If it can be shown that kids need some exercise during the schoolday, which is unlikely as most kids have been doing nothing but stand around during gym class since it was invented, have them all power-walk, or do aerobics, or anything that doesn't require a bunch of expensive equipment for only a handful of kids to use.
Why even bother to suggest such a big change? The point of education used to be to stick a bunch of info into kids' heads that they didn't need and would never use, or even remember for the most part, because "we the people" thought it was a good idea to do so (why, I have no idea)... and all it cost was a pittance given to the one teacher who taught every subject to every grade, so why not do it if it made parents feel like they were bettering their kids? Education is EXPENSIVE nowadays, though, and there are many things that kids NEED to know to be successful in adult life that can realistically be called the responsibility of the schools to teach them, so we need a totally different concept of what a school should be doing with the taxpayers' $.
Yes, the idea of learning just for the sake of knowing is a nice one, but it's not practical in today's world. Under my proposed system, anyone who wanted to learn subjects not taught in school could do just what they do NOW under those circumstances; read and learn by themselves, and later on take courses in college in that area (think how many subjects there are that are already only taught at college level, and note that no harm has come from it). Not many people would have the courage to publicly "admit" to this point of view, but I've got to wonder; if people were allowed to VOTE on this issue, knowing that their tax burden would be based on what was being taught, and that the ability of the kids to eventually pay taxes depended on what they'd learned, how many would be willing to pay for subjects that don't teach practical knowledge?
Friday, October 08, 2004
A pleasant memory
My husband got me some lovely flowers today (there IS a reason I keep him around, lol), and the unusual color reminded me of some flowers I'd seen nearly 20 years ago:
It was my mother's birthday, and I was done with my last class and heading for my car, when I had the urge to stop and look at the display of flowers at one of the many stalls set up along the main drag of the campus; $ was very tight at that time, and of course I'd already bought my mother a gift, but there were some very pretty brightly colored mixed bouquets for only $3-$4, and I went with the urge and bought her one.
When I got home, my mother was very pleased with the flowers, and put them in a vase in a prominent place. Shortly thereafter, my father showed up, and for literally the ONLY time in at least my lifetime, HE had gotten her flowers, too, in the same light purple as the ones I got today; you should have seen his face when he saw MY flowers. Belligerent and ill-natured as ever, he loudly demanded where the other flowers had come from, as if there was any other possible source besides me, and as if some sort of wrongdoing had taken place to put them there (in his mind, ANY action taken that didn't fit with his whims was indicative of wrongdoing). My mother gamely tried to make much of his flowers, but he was too busy glowering at me to notice.
It got better; with everyone there, it was officially time for her to open her gifts... and it turned out that the slimy S.O.B. hadn't gotten her one; the flowers were a substitute, NOT an addition. She handled this revelation by frostily declaring her intention to go change for dinner, and stalking from the room. As soon as she was out of hearing range, he hissed furiously, "Why did you get her flowers?!!" Smug and triumphant, I loftily shot back, "Why DIDN'T you get her a GIFT?" All he could do was fume, because he KNEW he'd pulled a shoddy stunt by trying to slide flowers in in place of a gift, and he knew we ALL knew, and that MY flowers made him look even worse.
My mother made it quite clear over the days that followed how she felt about all of this; when he started trying to regain some of his lost ground by saying every hour or so "Aren't those flowers nice?" she'd respond with "Yes, and the OTHER ones are nice too." She even went so far as to make a point of telling me that this was going on, and adding a few choice comments about what he'd done after all the effort she made for HIM on all of HIS birthdays.
I don't know what gives me a bigger thrill looking back; the way I managed to metaphorically kick his ass, which was probably the biggest victory of my teenaged life, or the realization that came many years later, that I'd had the only urge of my life to buy flowers for my mother on the exact same day that my father had the same unique urge... which of course was NOT a coincidence.
It was my mother's birthday, and I was done with my last class and heading for my car, when I had the urge to stop and look at the display of flowers at one of the many stalls set up along the main drag of the campus; $ was very tight at that time, and of course I'd already bought my mother a gift, but there were some very pretty brightly colored mixed bouquets for only $3-$4, and I went with the urge and bought her one.
When I got home, my mother was very pleased with the flowers, and put them in a vase in a prominent place. Shortly thereafter, my father showed up, and for literally the ONLY time in at least my lifetime, HE had gotten her flowers, too, in the same light purple as the ones I got today; you should have seen his face when he saw MY flowers. Belligerent and ill-natured as ever, he loudly demanded where the other flowers had come from, as if there was any other possible source besides me, and as if some sort of wrongdoing had taken place to put them there (in his mind, ANY action taken that didn't fit with his whims was indicative of wrongdoing). My mother gamely tried to make much of his flowers, but he was too busy glowering at me to notice.
It got better; with everyone there, it was officially time for her to open her gifts... and it turned out that the slimy S.O.B. hadn't gotten her one; the flowers were a substitute, NOT an addition. She handled this revelation by frostily declaring her intention to go change for dinner, and stalking from the room. As soon as she was out of hearing range, he hissed furiously, "Why did you get her flowers?!!" Smug and triumphant, I loftily shot back, "Why DIDN'T you get her a GIFT?" All he could do was fume, because he KNEW he'd pulled a shoddy stunt by trying to slide flowers in in place of a gift, and he knew we ALL knew, and that MY flowers made him look even worse.
My mother made it quite clear over the days that followed how she felt about all of this; when he started trying to regain some of his lost ground by saying every hour or so "Aren't those flowers nice?" she'd respond with "Yes, and the OTHER ones are nice too." She even went so far as to make a point of telling me that this was going on, and adding a few choice comments about what he'd done after all the effort she made for HIM on all of HIS birthdays.
I don't know what gives me a bigger thrill looking back; the way I managed to metaphorically kick his ass, which was probably the biggest victory of my teenaged life, or the realization that came many years later, that I'd had the only urge of my life to buy flowers for my mother on the exact same day that my father had the same unique urge... which of course was NOT a coincidence.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The big switch
I think that's what Dr. Joyce Brothers called it; what she was referring to is how men can be at each other's throats, figuratively or even literally, and then once the game, or business meeting, or fight is over, they do a complete 180 and are suddenly buddies... in the movies, they're typically shown getting amicably drunk together and singing, and that's apparently a fairly accurate portrayal of how it works (if my husband can be believed).
Another point that Dr. Brothers made about this is how foreign this behavior is to women; women tend to either like or dislike someone, and NOT to flip-flop about it from one moment to the next. While it DOES seem a little odd for someone to be able to flip a mental switch and have intense emotions evaporate... or is that my estrogen talking, lol? No, I think it really IS odd, as men don't do that sort of emotional about-face in other situations; it's a learned response, not a natural one. That doesn't make it wrong, though; while the suppression of ALL emotions is provably bad, might it not be a GOOD thing to get over belligerent and combative feelings once the need for them passes? Men might be onto something with this.
While it's reasonable to expect that a person might be angry somewhat beyond the event that caused the anger, an excellent case can be made that a mature adult does NOT need to keep being actively upset days or weeks later; often, women DO keep fuming on and on, though, which confuses and aggravates men, who think that when an argument is over the bad feelings that went with it should be over too, and that there's something wrong with a woman if that's not how she's behaving.
This issue goes beyond social gender differences in handling conflict and its resolution, though; perhaps the best point that Dr. Brothers made about this is that in the workplace, it's CRUCIAL to be able to do the big switch... because you can't still be pissy about how someone stole your idea last week when you and them have to work together on a project NOW, and how well you do depends on your ability to work well together. Men get an edge over women in the office by their ability to do the big switch, because women's INability to do it gets them seen as immature, unprofessional, and not "team players"... and thus not top candidates for raises and promotions. Presumably, it's the very fact that men have historically worked outside of the home (and played sports together and fought wars together) that made it necessary for them to develop this behavior pattern in order to be successful; now that women are doing all of these things, we need to take a look at what has been proven to work well and learn from it.
Ladies, while we DO still have the correct procedures for... well, pretty much everything, this is one area that the guys have the right idea; whether at work or at home, we need to learn to drop our negative feelings when the conflict is over. The getting drunk and singing together is optional, though.
Another point that Dr. Brothers made about this is how foreign this behavior is to women; women tend to either like or dislike someone, and NOT to flip-flop about it from one moment to the next. While it DOES seem a little odd for someone to be able to flip a mental switch and have intense emotions evaporate... or is that my estrogen talking, lol? No, I think it really IS odd, as men don't do that sort of emotional about-face in other situations; it's a learned response, not a natural one. That doesn't make it wrong, though; while the suppression of ALL emotions is provably bad, might it not be a GOOD thing to get over belligerent and combative feelings once the need for them passes? Men might be onto something with this.
While it's reasonable to expect that a person might be angry somewhat beyond the event that caused the anger, an excellent case can be made that a mature adult does NOT need to keep being actively upset days or weeks later; often, women DO keep fuming on and on, though, which confuses and aggravates men, who think that when an argument is over the bad feelings that went with it should be over too, and that there's something wrong with a woman if that's not how she's behaving.
This issue goes beyond social gender differences in handling conflict and its resolution, though; perhaps the best point that Dr. Brothers made about this is that in the workplace, it's CRUCIAL to be able to do the big switch... because you can't still be pissy about how someone stole your idea last week when you and them have to work together on a project NOW, and how well you do depends on your ability to work well together. Men get an edge over women in the office by their ability to do the big switch, because women's INability to do it gets them seen as immature, unprofessional, and not "team players"... and thus not top candidates for raises and promotions. Presumably, it's the very fact that men have historically worked outside of the home (and played sports together and fought wars together) that made it necessary for them to develop this behavior pattern in order to be successful; now that women are doing all of these things, we need to take a look at what has been proven to work well and learn from it.
Ladies, while we DO still have the correct procedures for... well, pretty much everything, this is one area that the guys have the right idea; whether at work or at home, we need to learn to drop our negative feelings when the conflict is over. The getting drunk and singing together is optional, though.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
If we could all look alike
Imagine if we all looked EXACTLY alike, so that we were absolutely indistinguishable from each other; you can imagine that men and women look alike except for the genitals, or that men and women have some of the other differences we're used to, such as height and body hair (I'D imagine that every man had a hairy chest, of course), but at the very least all men would look alike, and all women would look alike... and in either case, civilization as we know it would be altered out of recognition.
Think how much of human society is based on beauty; we all want to look beautiful and to have sexual partners who are beautiful, we want to look at beautiful people on TV and the silver screen, and of course on computer screens and in magazines (ahem)... much of art circles around portrayals of the beautiful, and advertising depends on it... people who are beautiful get higher grades in school, are paid more on the job, and get better treatment and more friends throughout their entire lives. The beautiful usually get their way, get whatever sexual partners they want (including the wealthy, powerful and famous), get treated like something special... the non-beautiful spend much of their lives in pursuit and service of the beautiful, and it's such a basic part of human nature that we don't even think about it.
There's more to physical appearance than just beauty or the lack of it, of course, and we'd have to consider how the removal of those thing would affect us, too. For example, we make all sorts of judgments based on skin color, hair color, age, height, weight, and the size of various body parts; most people only date within their own race, we usually have a preferred hair color, we worship youth, the taller candidate tends to win an election, we see weight as indicative of the person's level of virtue and general value as a human being (if you think I'm exaggerating, ask any obese person), a woman can get breast implants and go from being ignored by men to being ardently pursued, a man with big hands and feet will be the subject of much speculation... every nuance of our appearance influences how we react to each other.
If we could all look alike, if we couldn't have our way through life smoothed by beauty, or didn't have to struggle more than our circumstances should require due to unattractiveness, if we could make no judgment whatsoever about a person based on their appearance, if every interaction we had with people was based solely on each person's intelligence and personality... the mind boggles, doesn't it? How would we choose our sexual and romantic partners if there was nothing to base having instant lust for any particular person on? What about our desire for sexual novelty, when everyone looks the same; could we even function sexually if we couldn't single out anyone as being "hot"? How many of us would be able to build a romantic relationship without mutual attraction to pave the way, blinding us to each other's faults until we're in love?
What would the entertainment and advertising industries do without being able to use beauty to market movies, music, and everything from cars to canned soup?
How could we have racism if there was no way to know who was what race? What would racists do with all their hate?
Imagine a world where we could only win love, popularity and success by developing ourselves as human beings, rather than by enhancing and using our looks; would it lead to utopia... or would we be just as unhappy as we are now, because we don't all have equal levels of intelligence, humor, warmth, and other personality traits, and so some of us would STILL be favored, and DISfavored, for things we were born with?
Think how much of human society is based on beauty; we all want to look beautiful and to have sexual partners who are beautiful, we want to look at beautiful people on TV and the silver screen, and of course on computer screens and in magazines (ahem)... much of art circles around portrayals of the beautiful, and advertising depends on it... people who are beautiful get higher grades in school, are paid more on the job, and get better treatment and more friends throughout their entire lives. The beautiful usually get their way, get whatever sexual partners they want (including the wealthy, powerful and famous), get treated like something special... the non-beautiful spend much of their lives in pursuit and service of the beautiful, and it's such a basic part of human nature that we don't even think about it.
There's more to physical appearance than just beauty or the lack of it, of course, and we'd have to consider how the removal of those thing would affect us, too. For example, we make all sorts of judgments based on skin color, hair color, age, height, weight, and the size of various body parts; most people only date within their own race, we usually have a preferred hair color, we worship youth, the taller candidate tends to win an election, we see weight as indicative of the person's level of virtue and general value as a human being (if you think I'm exaggerating, ask any obese person), a woman can get breast implants and go from being ignored by men to being ardently pursued, a man with big hands and feet will be the subject of much speculation... every nuance of our appearance influences how we react to each other.
If we could all look alike, if we couldn't have our way through life smoothed by beauty, or didn't have to struggle more than our circumstances should require due to unattractiveness, if we could make no judgment whatsoever about a person based on their appearance, if every interaction we had with people was based solely on each person's intelligence and personality... the mind boggles, doesn't it? How would we choose our sexual and romantic partners if there was nothing to base having instant lust for any particular person on? What about our desire for sexual novelty, when everyone looks the same; could we even function sexually if we couldn't single out anyone as being "hot"? How many of us would be able to build a romantic relationship without mutual attraction to pave the way, blinding us to each other's faults until we're in love?
What would the entertainment and advertising industries do without being able to use beauty to market movies, music, and everything from cars to canned soup?
How could we have racism if there was no way to know who was what race? What would racists do with all their hate?
Imagine a world where we could only win love, popularity and success by developing ourselves as human beings, rather than by enhancing and using our looks; would it lead to utopia... or would we be just as unhappy as we are now, because we don't all have equal levels of intelligence, humor, warmth, and other personality traits, and so some of us would STILL be favored, and DISfavored, for things we were born with?
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
How well do you know...
... the people in your life?
If you said/thought "very well," and you probably did, as that's what most people think... guess again. We all think we're terrific judges of character, but studies, and real-life experience, show us otherwise. Do you think YOU are an exception? Ask yourself this: How many times has someone you thought was wonderful lied to you, betrayed you, cheated on you, hurt you? If you didn't say "zero," it means that either you HAVE been fooled by people you did NOT know as well as you thought you did, or you've been living in a cave your entire life; we've all endured endless pain because it turned out that we did NOT really know people we thought we knew... people who ended up being baddies.
Why does it prove that you didn't really know a person if they mistreat you? Unless you're an emotional masochist, you don't keep people around that you believe are going to hurt you at some point, so, conversely, if you DO keep someone in your life, it indicates that you believe they will NOT hurt you, in other words you trust them... and when someone abuses your trust, it comes as a nasty surprise. If you know someone, really KNOW them, NOTHING they do comes as a surprise to you, so, if they DO surprise you, and haven't had a head injury or other trauma that would have caused their personality to change, it indicates a distinct lack of understanding of their true self on your part... which means you did NOT know them well.
Don't feel bad about this unfortunate revelation; remember, EVERYONE gets fooled all the time, not just you. Think about it: How many times have people you know described being mistreated by people THEY thought were wonderful? More times than you can count, right? It's apparently a somewhat pitiful facet of human nature that we believe what people tell us, we believe that anyone who acts nice for 30 seconds IS nice, we believe that anyone we're having sex with, or live with, or grew up with, or gave birth to, is automatically nice... and, since statistically they CAN'T all be, we're wrong over and over, and thus get kicked in the emotional teeth over and over.
Can we learn how to tell in advance which people are going to behave badly? We can certainly cut people out of our lives at the FIRST sign of bad behavior; oh, I know, no one will actually DO that (except me), but it CAN be done. Barring that... I think we're just screwed, because any sociopath or con artist can tell you how easy it is to keep one's true self hidden.
Can we at least learn to tell when people are outright lying? Sadly, we can't even do that much; studies show that even people who are supposedly EXPERTS in telling when others are lying don't do any better when tested than blind guessing would do, and most of us are NOT experts... and that's why the shitty people of the world can get us over and over, because we just don't have a clue.
It's not just the bad stuff about people that we don't know, though; have you ever been surprised that someone you thought didn't like you did you a favor, or someone you thought hated animals adopted a stray kitten, or someone you thought was insensitive showed your friend major compassion when they got fired? We make snap judgments about people, and, once we decide that we don't like them and/or that they don't like US, we become blinded to their true selves, and thus won't really know them no matter how long they're in our lives... come to think of it, avoiding snap judgments is a good idea to protect us from hidden bad behavior, too, and yes, deciding on no evidence that someone is nice/sweet/trustworthy DOES count as a snap judgment. Maybe that's a big part of why we're so easily fooled; we decide what people are like before we know them well enough to validly tell. I wonder if that's a human nature thing or a cultural thing... I sure hope it's the latter, because then at least we'd have a chance at learning better.
Beyond what's good or bad about them, people can just surprise us in general, because we don't pay attention and don't remember what we've observed, and so don't know even those things about them that we SHOULD know; even seemingly trivial things can end up being important, and even if they don't, we can't say that we know anyone if we don't keep track of EVERYTHING that sheds light on their personality.
The place where we most need to focus on REALLY getting to know people is in the romantic arena; we'll be alot happier if we stop seeing relationships as the emotional equivalent of fast food and accept that, although we FEEL like we know someone as soon as the first rush of love or lust hits, we DON'T... we've got to wait until every aspect of their personality is familiar to us before we decide if we want to be with them long-term. In the not so distant past, anyone we got involved with had known, and been known by, our family, and everyone else we knew, their entire lives, so we had people to tell us what they were really like; now, all we usually have is our own judgment about our would-be partners, so we'd better use it as best we can.
If you're on the brink of letting someone into your life as a lover, or even as a close friend, try a little test; see how well you can predict what they'll do, say or think in each situation you face together, and see how well you score. Try the same thing with your family and closest friends. You'll learn a great deal about them, and, if you can keep track of it all, and be objective in how you analyze it (it's hard, but doable), you'll start being able to predict their behavior more accurately.
That'll only take you so far, though, so you need to do one more thing; keep reminding yourself that you don't know people as well as you think you do. No, it's not "romantic" or comforting to think about it, but it won't harm the good people in your life, and it WILL help protect you from the bad ones... and wouldn't it be nice to be able to get away from a bad person BEFORE they diss you for once?
If you said/thought "very well," and you probably did, as that's what most people think... guess again. We all think we're terrific judges of character, but studies, and real-life experience, show us otherwise. Do you think YOU are an exception? Ask yourself this: How many times has someone you thought was wonderful lied to you, betrayed you, cheated on you, hurt you? If you didn't say "zero," it means that either you HAVE been fooled by people you did NOT know as well as you thought you did, or you've been living in a cave your entire life; we've all endured endless pain because it turned out that we did NOT really know people we thought we knew... people who ended up being baddies.
Why does it prove that you didn't really know a person if they mistreat you? Unless you're an emotional masochist, you don't keep people around that you believe are going to hurt you at some point, so, conversely, if you DO keep someone in your life, it indicates that you believe they will NOT hurt you, in other words you trust them... and when someone abuses your trust, it comes as a nasty surprise. If you know someone, really KNOW them, NOTHING they do comes as a surprise to you, so, if they DO surprise you, and haven't had a head injury or other trauma that would have caused their personality to change, it indicates a distinct lack of understanding of their true self on your part... which means you did NOT know them well.
Don't feel bad about this unfortunate revelation; remember, EVERYONE gets fooled all the time, not just you. Think about it: How many times have people you know described being mistreated by people THEY thought were wonderful? More times than you can count, right? It's apparently a somewhat pitiful facet of human nature that we believe what people tell us, we believe that anyone who acts nice for 30 seconds IS nice, we believe that anyone we're having sex with, or live with, or grew up with, or gave birth to, is automatically nice... and, since statistically they CAN'T all be, we're wrong over and over, and thus get kicked in the emotional teeth over and over.
Can we learn how to tell in advance which people are going to behave badly? We can certainly cut people out of our lives at the FIRST sign of bad behavior; oh, I know, no one will actually DO that (except me), but it CAN be done. Barring that... I think we're just screwed, because any sociopath or con artist can tell you how easy it is to keep one's true self hidden.
Can we at least learn to tell when people are outright lying? Sadly, we can't even do that much; studies show that even people who are supposedly EXPERTS in telling when others are lying don't do any better when tested than blind guessing would do, and most of us are NOT experts... and that's why the shitty people of the world can get us over and over, because we just don't have a clue.
It's not just the bad stuff about people that we don't know, though; have you ever been surprised that someone you thought didn't like you did you a favor, or someone you thought hated animals adopted a stray kitten, or someone you thought was insensitive showed your friend major compassion when they got fired? We make snap judgments about people, and, once we decide that we don't like them and/or that they don't like US, we become blinded to their true selves, and thus won't really know them no matter how long they're in our lives... come to think of it, avoiding snap judgments is a good idea to protect us from hidden bad behavior, too, and yes, deciding on no evidence that someone is nice/sweet/trustworthy DOES count as a snap judgment. Maybe that's a big part of why we're so easily fooled; we decide what people are like before we know them well enough to validly tell. I wonder if that's a human nature thing or a cultural thing... I sure hope it's the latter, because then at least we'd have a chance at learning better.
Beyond what's good or bad about them, people can just surprise us in general, because we don't pay attention and don't remember what we've observed, and so don't know even those things about them that we SHOULD know; even seemingly trivial things can end up being important, and even if they don't, we can't say that we know anyone if we don't keep track of EVERYTHING that sheds light on their personality.
The place where we most need to focus on REALLY getting to know people is in the romantic arena; we'll be alot happier if we stop seeing relationships as the emotional equivalent of fast food and accept that, although we FEEL like we know someone as soon as the first rush of love or lust hits, we DON'T... we've got to wait until every aspect of their personality is familiar to us before we decide if we want to be with them long-term. In the not so distant past, anyone we got involved with had known, and been known by, our family, and everyone else we knew, their entire lives, so we had people to tell us what they were really like; now, all we usually have is our own judgment about our would-be partners, so we'd better use it as best we can.
If you're on the brink of letting someone into your life as a lover, or even as a close friend, try a little test; see how well you can predict what they'll do, say or think in each situation you face together, and see how well you score. Try the same thing with your family and closest friends. You'll learn a great deal about them, and, if you can keep track of it all, and be objective in how you analyze it (it's hard, but doable), you'll start being able to predict their behavior more accurately.
That'll only take you so far, though, so you need to do one more thing; keep reminding yourself that you don't know people as well as you think you do. No, it's not "romantic" or comforting to think about it, but it won't harm the good people in your life, and it WILL help protect you from the bad ones... and wouldn't it be nice to be able to get away from a bad person BEFORE they diss you for once?
Monday, October 04, 2004
A weird thing to be grateful for
My mother created a very odd "food atmosphere" in my family of origin, and, while most of the elements of it, such as how it didn't bother her that her only child HATED everything she made (sigh), were grim, there's ONE thing she got right; she handled each meal as if we were all on a perpetual diet. It wasn't until I reached adulthood, and started experiencing how other people ate, that I realized that we didn't eat like normal families (assuming there IS such a thing), and that her eternal concern about how many calories SHE was eating had trained me to naturally expect to eat in a way that many dieters have to torture themselves into adopting and sticking to... which I become more grateful for with each passing year, as my metabolism slows down and keeping my weight under control gets harder.
The biggest difference in how we ate was that there was no such thing as serving yourself, much less having seconds, in our household; my mother planned the meals so that we each got one small serving of each dish, and that was it-there was no extra, EVER. I got used to having small meals, and to feeling "done" after I'd eaten my one little plateful, and as a result, even if I'm eating at someone's house that DOES have serve-yourself platters of food, I eat one plateful and that's it.
We had no bread of any sort on the table, not even for holiday meals... so, I don't eat bread with dinner, unless I'm at a restaurant with REALLY good sourdough. Every woman I know who loves bread is a pudge, so I'm extra-grateful for this one.
We only had dessert once a week, and even then it was a small, portion-controlled dessert; when I started going out with the man I later married, I stopped having dessert with my mother, as I normally had it with him, and once we got married and weren't going out all the time, I actually forgot about desserts entirely... a real stoke of luck.
I never, EVER, saw my parents eat after dinner, so the concept of the midnight snack was, and is, utterly foreign to me; since whatever you eat right before bed, or get out of bed to eat, tends to turn right into fat, this is a very good habit to NOT have acquired.
There was no such thing as gravy, or sauces for veggies, at my mother's meals; when I hear people weeping and wailing about having to have their meat and veggies plain, I'm glad that I've always had mine that way. I even have potroast without any gravy, which is apparently sacrilegious, but having greasy liquid on my meat just seems icky to me... and besides, I like meat too much to blot out the taste by putting anything on it. (Veggies I don't eat at all, but that's a whole other essay.)
My mother was doing reduced-fat dairy long before it became popular; because that's all I ever had, and what I was used to, to me, regular sour cream, cottage cheese, or yogurt are heavy and gross (I only eat full-fat cheese, though, as none of the low-fat ones are fit for human consumption).
Cooked breakfasts were only a fantasy in our house, with the occasional holiday exception; all we ate in the morning was a bowl of cereal, which never thrilled me much, so I gave up breakfast when I went to college.
Lunch was the same sort of sandwiches over and over... so I gave that up, too.
Because I hated my mother's food so much, I ate slowly, as befitting someone who'd lost their appetite, and drank a great deal of milk (which later became diet soda) to gag it all down; my mother tried to harangue me out of these things, with no success, which is good because 2 of the most common weight-loss tips are to eat slowly and to drink alot of non-caloric beverage with your food to fill you up more quickly. It was freaky to realize that the revoltingness of the meals I had to eat gave me beneficial eating habits, but it's the simple truth.
To a "normal" person, the scanty meals we used to have would seem unpleasantly different from what they were used to; if they could hear the sort of ugliness that often got said at the table, though, they'd forget about the food and think how unlike the warm family gatherings they enjoyed our meals were... and there's probably a connection there, as my mother, the emotional "boss" of the house, was as withholding with affection as she was with food. To me, though, looking back, although I'd have liked to at least have gotten to have the occasional meal that was less like eating at a prison cafeteria, all the mealtime oddities that I learned growing up have served me in good stead as a weight-conscious adult... and I AM grateful.
The biggest difference in how we ate was that there was no such thing as serving yourself, much less having seconds, in our household; my mother planned the meals so that we each got one small serving of each dish, and that was it-there was no extra, EVER. I got used to having small meals, and to feeling "done" after I'd eaten my one little plateful, and as a result, even if I'm eating at someone's house that DOES have serve-yourself platters of food, I eat one plateful and that's it.
We had no bread of any sort on the table, not even for holiday meals... so, I don't eat bread with dinner, unless I'm at a restaurant with REALLY good sourdough. Every woman I know who loves bread is a pudge, so I'm extra-grateful for this one.
We only had dessert once a week, and even then it was a small, portion-controlled dessert; when I started going out with the man I later married, I stopped having dessert with my mother, as I normally had it with him, and once we got married and weren't going out all the time, I actually forgot about desserts entirely... a real stoke of luck.
I never, EVER, saw my parents eat after dinner, so the concept of the midnight snack was, and is, utterly foreign to me; since whatever you eat right before bed, or get out of bed to eat, tends to turn right into fat, this is a very good habit to NOT have acquired.
There was no such thing as gravy, or sauces for veggies, at my mother's meals; when I hear people weeping and wailing about having to have their meat and veggies plain, I'm glad that I've always had mine that way. I even have potroast without any gravy, which is apparently sacrilegious, but having greasy liquid on my meat just seems icky to me... and besides, I like meat too much to blot out the taste by putting anything on it. (Veggies I don't eat at all, but that's a whole other essay.)
My mother was doing reduced-fat dairy long before it became popular; because that's all I ever had, and what I was used to, to me, regular sour cream, cottage cheese, or yogurt are heavy and gross (I only eat full-fat cheese, though, as none of the low-fat ones are fit for human consumption).
Cooked breakfasts were only a fantasy in our house, with the occasional holiday exception; all we ate in the morning was a bowl of cereal, which never thrilled me much, so I gave up breakfast when I went to college.
Lunch was the same sort of sandwiches over and over... so I gave that up, too.
Because I hated my mother's food so much, I ate slowly, as befitting someone who'd lost their appetite, and drank a great deal of milk (which later became diet soda) to gag it all down; my mother tried to harangue me out of these things, with no success, which is good because 2 of the most common weight-loss tips are to eat slowly and to drink alot of non-caloric beverage with your food to fill you up more quickly. It was freaky to realize that the revoltingness of the meals I had to eat gave me beneficial eating habits, but it's the simple truth.
To a "normal" person, the scanty meals we used to have would seem unpleasantly different from what they were used to; if they could hear the sort of ugliness that often got said at the table, though, they'd forget about the food and think how unlike the warm family gatherings they enjoyed our meals were... and there's probably a connection there, as my mother, the emotional "boss" of the house, was as withholding with affection as she was with food. To me, though, looking back, although I'd have liked to at least have gotten to have the occasional meal that was less like eating at a prison cafeteria, all the mealtime oddities that I learned growing up have served me in good stead as a weight-conscious adult... and I AM grateful.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The electoral college
From now until after the election, I'll have a little graphic thing at the bottom of the page (because it warped my sidebar out of shape when I tried to put it there) showing the latest analysis from a site that predicts, based on the most recent polls, how many electoral votes each candidate is likely to have... and therefore who's likely to win. Since I've seen some carping about how terrible it supposedly is to still have the electoral system, I figured this was a good time to comment.
Why don't we just elect the president directly, by counting up the votes and declaring a winner? Because, if we did it that way, we could have a situation with a candidate who had intense support in one part of the country, and not much in the rest, and a 2nd candidate who had moderate support everywhere, where the 1st candidate had more total votes and would win, even though they were NOT the more popular candidate in most of the country... and the president MUST have people throughout most of the nation that want him, or he does NOT represent the nation as a whole.
The electoral college prevents this scenario from occurring, because a candidate gets the same # of electoral votes from a state he's "won" regardless of what % of the vote he got there, and therefore could NEVER win based on major popularity in just one part of the nation.
Don't think that candidates would narrow the focus of their vote-getting efforts if they didn't have to worry about electoral votes? They'd be foolish if they DIDN'T do so, because currently they have to exert a great deal of effort to get a few votes in the undecided areas so that they can get the electoral votes in those states, but freed of that constraint they can get many more total votes by expending that same effort on getting more people in the areas that already like them stirred up enough to go vote... it's alot easier to become popular in a few states than in all of 'em, let's face it.
Don't think victory via localized popularity would be bad if it DID happen? Think again; If you live in the South, would you want a president who doesn't care about your issues because he targeted the western states? If you live in California, do you want a president who can ignore you because he targeted the Bible Belt? You could take any 2 sections of the country and ask the same question; America is so huge that we truly have parts that are as different from each other as if they were different countries. Furthermore, if a candidate was focused on just one area, he'd lose all incentive to try to be at least vaguely centrist and to try to cater to every special interest group, which could leave alot of people out in the cold; he'd be as liberal or conservative as his chosen "zone," and only worry about those special interests groups that reside there. If you don't like it when a president from "the other party" is in office NOW, I guarantee you that you'd like it far less if someone from that party who has no reason to worry about ALL the voters goes to the White House.
For someone to get the job as the most powerful human being on the planet, he (or she, but I don't see that happening soon, do you?) needs to get 270 electoral votes, and if he can do that it means he's the more popular candidate in most parts of the nation... which is how it should be, how it MUST be. Those who complain about the electoral college generally don't understand why it exists or why we need it, and would rather believe that the founding fathers just tossed the concept into the Constitution because they felt like adding an extra and unnecessary step into the voting process, rather than learn the facts; hopefully, I've at least provided food for thought on the subject.
Why don't we just elect the president directly, by counting up the votes and declaring a winner? Because, if we did it that way, we could have a situation with a candidate who had intense support in one part of the country, and not much in the rest, and a 2nd candidate who had moderate support everywhere, where the 1st candidate had more total votes and would win, even though they were NOT the more popular candidate in most of the country... and the president MUST have people throughout most of the nation that want him, or he does NOT represent the nation as a whole.
The electoral college prevents this scenario from occurring, because a candidate gets the same # of electoral votes from a state he's "won" regardless of what % of the vote he got there, and therefore could NEVER win based on major popularity in just one part of the nation.
Don't think that candidates would narrow the focus of their vote-getting efforts if they didn't have to worry about electoral votes? They'd be foolish if they DIDN'T do so, because currently they have to exert a great deal of effort to get a few votes in the undecided areas so that they can get the electoral votes in those states, but freed of that constraint they can get many more total votes by expending that same effort on getting more people in the areas that already like them stirred up enough to go vote... it's alot easier to become popular in a few states than in all of 'em, let's face it.
Don't think victory via localized popularity would be bad if it DID happen? Think again; If you live in the South, would you want a president who doesn't care about your issues because he targeted the western states? If you live in California, do you want a president who can ignore you because he targeted the Bible Belt? You could take any 2 sections of the country and ask the same question; America is so huge that we truly have parts that are as different from each other as if they were different countries. Furthermore, if a candidate was focused on just one area, he'd lose all incentive to try to be at least vaguely centrist and to try to cater to every special interest group, which could leave alot of people out in the cold; he'd be as liberal or conservative as his chosen "zone," and only worry about those special interests groups that reside there. If you don't like it when a president from "the other party" is in office NOW, I guarantee you that you'd like it far less if someone from that party who has no reason to worry about ALL the voters goes to the White House.
For someone to get the job as the most powerful human being on the planet, he (or she, but I don't see that happening soon, do you?) needs to get 270 electoral votes, and if he can do that it means he's the more popular candidate in most parts of the nation... which is how it should be, how it MUST be. Those who complain about the electoral college generally don't understand why it exists or why we need it, and would rather believe that the founding fathers just tossed the concept into the Constitution because they felt like adding an extra and unnecessary step into the voting process, rather than learn the facts; hopefully, I've at least provided food for thought on the subject.
