Is there a science to happiness?

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 26th, 2017, 2:15 pm 

Thanks for the correction. On the other hand you've also made my point because if the education system made school more fun and exciting instead of boring and unrelatable I'd retained way more of that information on grammar and punctuation. Also when your parents are fighting a civil war and you live in a community that you are not fond of while going through a depression then grammar and punctuation aren't really on the top of your list when it comes to priorities. In fact in the video I just posted there was a story of an 18 year old who was stuck in the system for the longest time but, still didn't know how to read.
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 26th, 2017, 2:17 pm 

Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 26th, 2017, 2:21 pm 

Athena » Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:57 pm wrote:Actually, there are several books supporting what Revolutionary said and many scientific studies. Here a few titles:

Lives on the Boundary- A Moving Account of the Struggles and Achievements of America's Educationally Underprepared by Mike Rose

pedagogy of the oppressed by Paulo Freire

Bright Minds, Poor Grades Understanding and Motivating Your Underachieving Child by Michael D. Whitley, PH D (the first thing parents need to do according to the book is "Parents must be emotionally mature enough to work out their differences with their spouses or other parent and work together for the children's welfare and future success. One of the common experiences in my clinic is that parents of underachievers disagree about how to rear their underachieving child." And he is talking about well-off people who have the resources and desire to seek counseling for a child, not a child growing up in a slum where people are killed frequently and at least one parent is addicted to drugs or alcohol.

You may enjoy movies that are based on real teachers. "Stand and Deliver" is one such movie and makes Revolutionaries point.
Thank you for taking the time to post this list, however I was using the convention that when one asks for a citation one is specifically referring to a peer reviewed research article in a reputable journal.

Athena » Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:57 pm wrote:If you do want information, you can google for the research work.
Revolutionary is making the assertions. It is his responsibility to provide the evidence that supports those assertions. It is not my role to seek out data that may or may not support his opinion. This is not rocket science. This is a matter of common practice in any serious academic discussion.

Athena » Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:57 pm wrote:I think if you examine the information you will change your opinion.
The only opinion I have expressed is that it is unwise to attempt a major restructuring of society based upon ones personal negative experiences. In the same way it would be unwise for me to defend the status quo based upon my personal positive experiences.

I think it highly unlikely that anything in the information provided thus far, or in proper citations Revolutionary may provide will dissuade me from that. What such information could do is demonstrate that Revolutionary's personal experiences are irrelevant, but that well judged research supports his opinion.

I direct your questions to you. Where is the evidence of your research and/or experience that makes you so sure of your opinion?
That is a strange question. You are asking me why do I think it is important to have a comprehensive, objective understanding of a major problem before embarking upon a solution. Before I attempt to answer that perhaps you will confirm I have understood your question.

Right now Revolutionary is looking like a hero in my eyes, because he speaks of a reality most people here know nothing about, and one that the people here do not respected and do not believed. I was most fortunate to experience growing up in poverty and then meeting my father who was an engineer for NASA and played an important role in landing Apollo on the moon. I lived with his second family for 3 months and experienced a completely different reality from the one I grew up with. I know of both realities and that neither side knows of the other's reality, but both are opinionated and think they know about "those people" who live a completely different reality. My saving grace was having a grandmother who was a teacher and could give me the help I did not get in school and she gave a love of education. Oh, and if you do want to look for information, look for information we are learning from a study of animals and the importance of relationships to learning. There are so many things we could talk about!
You are of course correct. I had none of these experiences.

I did not grow up in poverty. True, we had no inside toilet and once a week bathnight was in a galvanised steel basin in front of a coal fire. True I shared my parents room until I was ten, while my sister occupied an adjacent room not much larger than a cupboard. And my diet was such that when I was seven or eight I developed rickets. I imagine, from the strength of your feelings on the matter that you experienced true poverty rather than my ersatz variety.

In case you do not know, I have studied the history of education for many years. I have a very large personal library looking at humanity from every point of view and do know a little about human development and education. I was not a full blown rebel until 1980 when I returned to college and realized how white and middle-class college education is and how the Military Industrial Complex has consumed the democracy we once had. It took the 1970 recession to open my eyes to the role education plays in the disparity. What really set me on fire was a popular columnist publishing in his column that "teachers should not have to waste their time on poor students" and the young student who went on a killing spree at the high school my daughter attended. Come on, let us talk, I have a lot to say and can back it up with research, books, and movies based on true stories about teachers, and what Revolutionary is saying is important, and it takes balls to speak out from where he is coming from to people who think what he is saying is not credible.
1. I did not say Revolutionary's thoughts were not credible. I asked him to demonstrate their credibility.

2. It takes practically no courage at all to speak anonymously on the internet.

3. I don't consider "movies based on true stories about teachers" of any value, unless you are studying how the entertainment industry tends to distort the truth for commercial purposes.

4. You say you have studied the history of education for years. While I do not have first hand experience of the US education system, I have an intimate and extended experience with the products of that system.

My direct experience of education is as a pupil in the Scottish system in the 1950s and 60s, and as a school governor for a period in the 1990s. My more recent exposure to educational systems is through discussions with my daughter who trained and taught in England, and subsequently in Thailand and Hong Kong, and discussion with and observations of university graduates from Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East, Australia, the Indian sub-continent and South East Asia.

My grasp of educational theory arises from developing and delivering technical training to engineering and science graduates, managing a training department, observing varied teaching practices in use by a wide variety of individuals exposed to different systems, and studying textbooks and research papers on the subject of teaching.

It's an eclectic mix and, arguably, may not be relevant to what you have experienced. It has led me to a second opinion I''ll share with you: complex problems rarely have simple solutions. Revolutionary appears to me to be seeking a simple solution. I suspect that may be a mistake.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 26th, 2017, 2:41 pm 

The only reason I am remaining anonymous is because those were the rules of the forum. I really don't have anything to hide. I'd be more than happy to tell you my actual name and where I live (hoping that no one on here is a criminal or a lunatic). My solutions aren't so simple but, I did make an outline of what I think will help most students in the system that hardly helps them.

I also find it condescending that you come from a totally different education system in the UK and you're not talking about the one in the US. You're also talking about engineers and science graduates. Does everyone even want to go to University? I ask you should we leave everyone who is not academically or scientifically minded behind and leave them to be unhappy. What about those people out there who just want a high school diploma and want to work after that? Why isn't the system not helping them and why does it have such a bias against them? Anyway I can provide my full name and where I live if you don't think I'm brave. In the mean time I really want to see what you think about the solutions that I provided here in one of my blog posts. http://bakshandehariel.wixsite.com/webs ... -Solutions
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby TheVat on February 26th, 2017, 10:00 pm 

Rickets? Really?

BTW, I am unaware of forum rules that require anonymity. Several members post under their real names. Many others mention their real names in posts or link to blogs with their real names. I had my name publicly displayed in phone directories for decades, with an address, and not one lunatic* or criminal darkened my door. Most people did, and gave it almost no thought. As far as I know, the only rule is not to violate someone else's anonymity.

* well there was the occasional Jehovah's Witness, but they were just going door to door.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7222
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Revolutionary liked this post


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 26th, 2017, 10:06 pm 

Well then in that case my real name is Ariel Bakshandeh and I live in Los Angeles California. I went to school at Beverly Hills High School then Community College at SMC got a broadcasting AA degree there and then took some time off and after that I went to a University named CSUN and now I have a BA in Communication Studies. So there ya go Eclogite I'm not that anonymous as before. Also if you want to be my friend on facebook here is my page https://www.facebook.com/ariel.bakshandeh?ref=bookmarks.
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 5:02 am 

Yes, indeed. I am uncomfortable talking about it as it implies improper parental care when it was more a reflection of post-war conditions in the UK and very low family income. (And the traditional absence of sun in Scotland.)

@Revolutionary. Your post contains several points that suggest I was unclear in my own writing. This is an attempt to rectify that.

1. I did not accuse you of cowardice. Athena made an observation suggesting you that you had been brave to make your statements on this forum. That was a silly observation since making comments in the anonymity of the internet does not require much courage. That point stands independent of who you are and how brave you may or may not be.

2. Frankly, I don't see what relevance your bravery, or lack of it, has to your argument. I come from a long line of cowards. My ancestors successfully avoided sabre tooth cats, Roman legionnaires and Napoleon's troops through the diligent application of cowardice. I recommend it as a survival strategy.

3. I do not understand your use of the word condescending. In what way is it condescending to outline the basis on which I have formed my views on education?

4. I have not been talking about the US education system, or the education system anywhere on the planet. I have been asking you questions about your views and making observations about those views. Which raises a key point. It's number 5 and I think it so important I'm going to put the words in bold.

5. From the outset you seem to have made the faulty assumption that anyone who questions you also disagrees with you, that anyone who criticises you wishes you to fail.

6. My lengthy review of my own exposure to education was as a courtesy to Athena who had provided her background.

7. Consequently my emphasis on graduates was not because I think university education is more important than other kinds, but because much of my awareness of global education comes from working with graduates. You seem to have quite overlooked what I may have learned of children's educational systems from my own time as a pupil, conversations with my daughter the teacher and chairing a school board.

8. You have yet to make a case for the need for change. Just repeating that change is required does not make it so and it certainly doesn't convince people who doubt it is necessary. Your starting point has to be making the case that change is necessary. Some of my questions have been designed to try to extract that from you.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby TheVat on February 27th, 2017, 10:36 am 

I come from a long line of cowards. My ancestors successfully avoided sabre tooth cats, Roman legionnaires and Napoleon's troops through the diligent application of cowardice. I recommend it as a survival strategy.



I enjoy your posts, Eclogite. Canada used to have a rustic comedy show called The Red Green Show, about some rural fellows at a place called Possum Lodge. Their lodge's motto was Quando Omnia vincit, moritati. "When all else fails, play dead."

Sorry to question the rickets - I wasn't sure if you were serious. Seems like something that could happen in the low-UV nation of Scotland with even the best of parenting, if times are hard.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7222
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 10:51 am 

Revolutionary » February 26th, 2017, 12:15 pm wrote:Thanks for the correction. On the other hand you've also made my point because if the education system made school more fun and exciting instead of boring and unrelatable I'd retained way more of that information on grammar and punctuation. Also when your parents are fighting a civil war and you live in a community that you are not fond of while going through a depression then grammar and punctuation aren't really on the top of your list when it comes to priorities. In fact in the video I just posted there was a story of an 18 year old who was stuck in the system for the longest time but, still didn't know how to read.



Laugh, I love this line- . Also when your parents are fighting a civil war and you live in a community that you are not fond of while going through a depression then grammar and punctuation aren't really on the top of your list when it comes to priorities.

My parents were already divorced so I was caught up in grief and insecurity to the degree of not being sure we would eat and have a home. My priority was figuring out how I could help my mother and relieve her pain and protect my little sister. Yeah, we now have research about why these children may not do well in school because their minds are distracted by real survival needs and are not available for school work.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Revolutionary liked this post


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 11:10 am 

Braininvat » February 27th, 2017, 8:36 am wrote:
I come from a long line of cowards. My ancestors successfully avoided sabre tooth cats, Roman legionnaires and Napoleon's troops through the diligent application of cowardice. I recommend it as a survival strategy.



I enjoy your posts, Eclogite. Canada used to have a rustic comedy show called The Red Green Show, about some rural fellows at a place called Possum Lodge. Their lodge's motto was Quando Omnia vincit, moritati. "When all else fails, play dead."

Sorry to question the rickets - I wasn't sure if you were serious. Seems like something that could happen in the low-UV nation of Scotland with even the best of parenting, if times are hard.


Oh my gaud! Rickets was a serious concern in the US during the Great Depression. So can permanent mental retardation be the result of malnutrition. We seem very disconnected from some facts of life that people in a democracy perhaps should know when they make their left and right decisions.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 11:36 am 

That was a silly observation since making comments in the anonymity of the internet does not require much courage.


Now that is an opinion without empirical information to support it.

I am loving this discussion and I sure as blazes would not be saying what I am saying if it were not for Revolutionary saying what he is saying. What we are saying is like being Black and trying to live in a White neighborhood miles away from any other Black people. Next to being Black, being poor in any way is to face social rejection and discrimination.

At least in the US, it is like everyone is living with a fairy tale understanding of reality, and if we don't fit the image of these fairy tale lives, we are the ogres who crash the party.

According to research, poor students are the most likely to drop out of college, because they don't feel like they fit in, and also because they get very different messages from their family about their chances of success. With the well off family sending messages that success is very likely with the right effort, and the poor families sending messages that success is very unlikely. I hate racism because it is such complete denial that being White and poor is equal to being Black and poor. The real problem is poverty, and is secondary that being Black made it harder to get out of poverty until the federal government took strong steps to change this fact of life. At least that how life looks from my point of view.

Revolutionary is making the assertions. It is his responsibility to provide the evidence that supports those assertions.


Really? I thought if a person wants to join a discussion, s/he has two choices, either get informed or admit not knowing something. Engaging in arguments without knowledge and as though one is an expert on the subject, just doesn't seem right to me. When we want to know something we can try googling for information and if we are talking as though we already know everything that is important, it is no one's responsibility to provide us information. Believing it is someone's responsibility to inform us when we believe we already know, is combative. This is the popular thing to do in forums, but cultures that condone this are also cultures likely to go war.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Revolutionary liked this post


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 12:48 pm 

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote:
That was a silly observation since making comments in the anonymity of the internet does not require much courage.

Revolutionary is making the assertions. It is his responsibility to provide the evidence that supports those assertions.
Really?
Yes, really.
If I make an assertion I will provide the support if I feel it is something that may be disputed or likely to be unknown by many.
If I have not provided support, but am asked to so I shall do so. (In very rare cases, if I realise my assertion was flawed I shall retract it and apologise for the error.)

This section is called the Philosophy of Science. The practices I have just described are not only common within science, they are mandatory. I stand ready to be shown that these practices are not expected and required in philosophy. Please go ahead.

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote:I thought if a person wants to join a discussion, s/he has two choices, either get informed or admit not knowing something. .
1. I am informed to a degree, and I believe some of Revolutionary's assertions are incorrect. I am asking him to demonstrate that he is not just expressing an opinion, but has evidence to support his assertions.
2. I am not fully informed. Revolutionary is claiming knowledge of a particular topic. Common courtesy would suggest he share the source of this knowledge when requested.

Both are valid reasons for requesting evidence be presented. The alternative is to.... what? Accept what someone says, just because they say it. That would be asinine

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote:When we want to know something we can try googling for information and if we are talking as though we already know everything that is important, it is no one's responsibility to provide us information.
Nonsense! If I make an assertion it is wholly my responsibility to support that assertion. You seem to believe a productive discussion can be had when the participants are free to express opinions and have them accepted as facts. Well, I'm not in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge and though I've never even been to Missouri I still say "show me".

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote: Believing it is someone's responsibility to inform us when we believe we already know, is combative.
Discourteously refusing to provide support for assertions one claims are more than an opinion is combative.

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote: This is the popular thing to do in forums, but cultures that condone this are also cultures likely to go war.
It is not only a popular thing, it is one of the conditions of membership to the forum that you agreed to when you signed up. I think a deliberate flouting of the rules and an advocacy that the rules be broken - which is what you are doing - is much more likely to lead to war than a measured discussion that includes as an integral part of it providing support for ones claims.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 27th, 2017, 1:36 pm 

So please Eclogite answer a very simple question for me. Should the education system improve the quality of people's lives or diminish (or stagnate) the quality or people's lives?
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 2:22 pm 

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:36 pm wrote:So please Eclogite answer a very simple question for me. Should the education system improve the quality of people's lives or diminish (or stagnate) the quality or people's lives?
Obviously the former.

In order to improve anything efficiently we need four things:

1. A quantitative description of what is wrong with the present system.
2. An understanding, as deep as possible, of how those defects arose.
3. A vision of the desired end point of the improvement.
4. A detailed step by step plan on how to move from the present situation to desired end point, including an assessment of the obstacles en route and how to overcome them.

It is generally considered wise to begin a journey at the beginning. I have been trying to get you to do so. I wish you to define the problem, objectively, with supporting data. Only then can we proceed.

Thus far what I am seeing is an enthusiastic evangelist for change, distributing broad based condemnation without evidence and mouthing platitudes without substance. I'm trying to help you here. Work with me.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 2:59 pm 

Eclogite said, "Thank you for taking the time to post this list, however I was using the convention that when one asks for a citation one is specifically referring to a peer reviewed research article in a reputable journal.


I think I can work with your request if you are specific about the information you want. However, you remind me of a professor who accepted only research papers in the abstracts, done in the last 10 years, excluding volumes of information that did not fit this very narrow window. This is one reason the consciousness of the well educated is so narrow and the divide between them and the rest of world is increasing. On the surface, you are dealing with information, and beneath this surface is a failure to engage with humans. It is an elitism that is causing a problem today.

Revolutionary is making the assertions. It is his responsibility to provide the evidence that supports those assertions. It is not my role to seek out data that may or may not support his opinion. This is not rocket science. This is a matter of common practice in any serious academic discussion.


The list of books and recommendation of movies validates Revolutionary's assertions, and since I agree with him, I don't understand why the responsibility for his side of the argument is only his.

The only opinion I have expressed is that it is unwise to attempt a major restructuring of society based upon ones personal negative experiences. In the same way it would be unwise for me to defend the status quo based upon my personal positive experiences.

I think it highly unlikely that anything in the information provided thus far, or in proper citations Revolutionary may provide will dissuade me from that. What such information could do is demonstrate that Revolutionary's personal experiences are irrelevant, but that well judged research supports his opinion.



As I said, with more information you might change your opinion. Actually, I think it is very important to expand on what you think is important.

That is a strange question. You are asking me why do I think it is important to have a comprehensive, objective understanding of a major problem before embarking upon a solution. Before I attempt to answer that perhaps you will confirm I have understood your question.


The question you posed above is not the question you posed to Revolutionary. "Where is the evidence of your research and/or experience that makes you so sure of your opinion?" was your question to Revolutionary. And your opinion is "that it is unwise to attempt a major restructuring of society" based on what Revolutionary said is so. I am in agreement with Revolutionary so "Where is the evidence of your research and/or experience that makes you so sure of your opinion". This may not be relevant now because you have explained some of your experience with education. A list of the books you think are important would help, and discussion of the purpose of education.

I did not grow up in poverty. True, we had no inside toilet and once a week bathnight was in a galvanised steel basin in front of a coal fire. True I shared my parents room until I was ten, while my sister occupied an adjacent room not much larger than a cupboard. And my diet was such that when I was seven or eight I developed rickets. I imagine, from the strength of your feelings on the matter that you experienced true poverty rather than my ersatz variety.


And what was the date of your experience? Do you think our society's are the same today? This is a very, very important question. Do you not recognize a social and economic difference between your childhood and the present? Let me clarify, did you grow up in a society living with the mentality of abundance, where the biggest threat is those welfare people and taxes? Did you enter the workforce when a college education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility, or when an increasing number of college-educated people are underemployed and carrying debt for college loans they can not pay off? Did you enter the workforce, before or after Reagan told us there are no homeless people, only bums?

1. I did not say Revolutionary's thoughts were not credible. I asked him to demonstrate their credibility.
Which thought do you not think is not credible?

3. I don't consider "movies based on true stories about teachers" of any value, unless you are studying how the entertainment industry tends to distort the truth for commercial purposes.

This is way too bad. Again, like the professor who had a very tiny, tiny understanding of life, because of his discrimination of good or poor sources of information.

My direct experience of education is as a pupil in the Scottish system in the 1950s and 60s, and as a school governor for a period in the 1990s. My more recent exposure to educational systems is through discussions with my daughter who trained and taught in England, and subsequently in Thailand and Hong Kong, and discussion with and observations of university graduates from Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East, Australia, the Indian sub-continent and South East Asia.

My grasp of educational theory arises from developing and delivering technical training to engineering and science graduates, managing a training department, observing varied teaching practices in use by a wide variety of individuals exposed to different systems, and studying textbooks and research papers on the subject of teaching.

It's an eclectic mix and, arguably, may not be relevant to what you have experienced. It has led me to a second opinion I''ll share with you: complex problems rarely have simple solutions. Revolutionary appears to me to be seeking a simple solution. I suspect that may be a mistake.


I can see why you think you have good grounds for your opinion, but I think Revolutionary and I are talking about people who do not fit into this box? And for me, the disagreement with you is much greater, because I favor liberal education and see the 1958 National Defense Education Act as devastating to democracy in the US, and my opinion is built on what is said in very old books and a different understanding of democracy than the popular understanding of democracy. Meaning I am very far out of the box of your understanding of education. Much further out than Revolutionary is, but Revolutionary has some very good points to make.

There is no question that family disagreement and divorce can seriously damage a child's ability to learn, and I suppose this is the research you want. This is much more of a problem with education for technology than if we had liberal education because liberal education is full of information about how to cope with life, and education for technology is not.

His second very valid point is the need to bridge between education and the workforce. This one might get even crazier as robotics replace more and more of the workforce and all aspects of government become more technologically minded and more divorced from the common people. I am quite sure we are headed for a serious social and economic crisis, and today's education is taking us over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings just trying to avoid the stampede that is threatening to run over them.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Revolutionary liked this post


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 27th, 2017, 3:18 pm 

1. What's wrong with the present system is that there is no bridge between the education world and the career world out of high school (not everyone wants to go to College/University) What is also wrong is that I was told at a young age to just do well in school and after I did well in school I'd have a lucrative career and wouldn't end up working in a minimum wage job. That's what I was told by my teachers and parents all throughout my childhood and adolescents. Low and behold they were all WRONG. That's because everything they told me the opposite turned out to be true. No employer ever looked or cared about my grades they cared about skills but, the education system didn't give me the skills to function in a job market only random trivia that I could use if I were a contestant on some game show like "who wants to be a millionaire". Not only that but, it was sickening that I went through so much stress during my educational career with the "promise" that it'd all be worth it in the end when I got that "job" which was also a lie. Later I found out the job market was like Vegas it was a gamble whether you did well in school or not and it wasn't about what you know but, who you know (networking) which isn't so easy for an introverted person such as myself.

2. Your guess is as good as mine as to how these problems arose. I am a millennial born in 1988 so by the time I was born I'm pretty sure in the past years that education had it's defects way before I was born. As Athena said it may have been the 1958 NDEA. All I knew is that some of my teachers hated their jobs, assigned too much work, and talked about how they wanted to be doing something else. Students are there by force and teachers have a choice but, when they choose to make learning miserable and have tenure there is nothing the students can do... Fascism much? I mean we have no rights and everything is done to us by force.

3. A point of improvement are for these ignorant schools to not be stuck in the past. Why are we still using the industrial model when we live in a time when technological shifts are so fast and rapid. Why is it that schools (at least my high school I went to) don't teach about money and finances. If we're going to have to function in adult society we need to be prepared to know how to not run out of money and make money? In my opinion to survive and live a decent life you need money so why the hell is it that getting a job has turned into a gamble and a numbers game when you went and spent all that time, energy, and effort on all your tests, quizzes, essays, and projects to be told it's all for your future then when you get a piece of paper which is a diploma and you have a job interview it has nothing to do with all those things that you've done in school I find that to be sickening.

4. I laid out a plan in this blog post that I wrote up in January.
http://bakshandehariel.wixsite.com/webs ... -Solutions
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 27th, 2017, 3:19 pm 

1. What's wrong with the present system is that there is no bridge between the education world and the career world out of high school (not everyone wants to go to College/University) What is also wrong is that I was told at a young age to just do well in school and after I did well in school I'd have a lucrative career and wouldn't end up working in a minimum wage job. That's what I was told by my teachers and parents all throughout my childhood and adolescents. Low and behold they were all WRONG. That's because everything they told me the opposite turned out to be true. No employer ever looked or cared about my grades they cared about skills but, the education system didn't give me the skills to function in a job market only random trivia that I could use if I were a contestant on some game show like "who wants to be a millionaire". Not only that but, it was sickening that I went through so much stress during my educational career with the "promise" that it'd all be worth it in the end when I got that "job" which was also a lie. Later I found out the job market was like Vegas it was a gamble whether you did well in school or not and it wasn't about what you know but, who you know (networking) which isn't so easy for an introverted person such as myself.

2. Your guess is as good as mine as to how these problems arose. I am a millennial born in 1988 so by the time I was born I'm pretty sure in the past years that education had it's defects way before I was born. As Athena said it may have been the 1958 NDEA. All I knew is that some of my teachers hated their jobs, assigned too much work, and talked about how they wanted to be doing something else. Students are there by force and teachers have a choice but, when they choose to make learning miserable and have tenure there is nothing the students can do... Fascism much? I mean we have no rights and everything is done to us by force.

3. A point of improvement are for these ignorant schools to not be stuck in the past. Why are we still using the industrial model when we live in a time when technological shifts are so fast and rapid. Why is it that schools (at least my high school I went to) don't teach about money and finances. If we're going to have to function in adult society we need to be prepared to know how to not run out of money and make money? In my opinion to survive and live a decent life you need money so why the hell is it that getting a job has turned into a gamble and a numbers game when you went and spent all that time, energy, and effort on all your tests, quizzes, essays, and projects to be told it's all for your future then when you get a piece of paper which is a diploma and you have a job interview it has nothing to do with all those things that you've done in school I find that to be sickening.

4. I laid out a plan in this blog post that I wrote up in January.
http://bakshandehariel.wixsite.com/webs ... -Solutions
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 3:31 pm 

Eclogite » February 27th, 2017, 10:48 am wrote:
Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote:
That was a silly observation since making comments in the anonymity of the internet does not require much courage.

Revolutionary is making the assertions. It is his responsibility to provide the evidence that supports those assertions.
Really?
Yes, really.
If I make an assertion I will provide the support if I feel it is something that may be disputed or likely to be unknown by many.
If I have not provided support, but am asked to so I shall do so. (In very rare cases, if I realise my assertion was flawed I shall retract it and apologise for the error.)

This section is called the Philosophy of Science. The practices I have just described are not only common within science, they are mandatory. I stand ready to be shown that these practices are not expected and required in philosophy. Please go ahead.

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote:I thought if a person wants to join a discussion, s/he has two choices, either get informed or admit not knowing something. .
1. I am informed to a degree, and I believe some of Revolutionary's assertions are incorrect. I am asking him to demonstrate that he is not just expressing an opinion, but has evidence to support his assertions.
2. I am not fully informed. Revolutionary is claiming knowledge of a particular topic. Common courtesy would suggest he share the source of this knowledge when requested.

Both are valid reasons for requesting evidence be presented. The alternative is to.... what? Accept what someone says, just because they say it. That would be asinine

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote:When we want to know something we can try googling for information and if we are talking as though we already know everything that is important, it is no one's responsibility to provide us information.
Nonsense! If I make an assertion it is wholly my responsibility to support that assertion. You seem to believe a productive discussion can be had when the participants are free to express opinions and have them accepted as facts. Well, I'm not in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge and though I've never even been to Missouri I still say "show me".

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote: Believing it is someone's responsibility to inform us when we believe we already know, is combative.
Discourteously refusing to provide support for assertions one claims are more than an opinion is combative.

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:36 pm wrote: This is the popular thing to do in forums, but cultures that condone this are also cultures likely to go war.
It is not only a popular thing, it is one of the conditions of membership to the forum that you agreed to when you signed up. I think a deliberate flouting of the rules and an advocacy that the rules be broken - which is what you are doing - is much more likely to lead to war than a measured discussion that includes as an integral part of it providing support for ones claims.


Perhaps I should just butt out of this discussion, if it is only between you are Revolutionary? But if this is a discussion for all members of the forum, list the assertions you disagree with and I will see what I can do to find the research papers that meet the standard's of the forum.

I said: Believing it is someone's responsibility to inform us when we believe we already know, is combative.

You said:
Discourteously refusing to provide support for assertions one claims are more than an opinion is combative.

You are asking for an argument and that is combative. I suspect Revolutionary lacks the skill to find the necessary research papers to support what he is saying from his point of view. Judging his failure as being discourteous, instead of a lack of skill, may not be the correct judgment, but your judgment would justify bashing him for not complying with your demand. On the other hand, feminine and liberal me thinks things might go better if they are handled differently.

I also think we might not have the history of war that we have if the feminine point of view had always been respected.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Revolutionary liked this post


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 27th, 2017, 3:44 pm 

Wow Athena great way of putting it. I had a public speaking class myself and we value ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos appeals to ethics, pathos appeals to emotion, and logos appeals to logic. Some scientific thinkers tend to undervalue pathos and only appeal to logos and ethos and my public speaking teacher also said this about a scientist. Eclogite you know well that people who are polarizing don't bring up research papers and whatnot. How did you think someone like Hitler rose to power? He didn't use research papers and logical arguments (unfortunately) he was a demagogue and got people riled up.

The problem with that is that sometimes you can be logical and ethical but, for people to listen you have to have that human element of emotion. A bunch of statistics thrown at someones face especially someone who is suffering isn't really going to make them feel anything. On the other hand if you try to relate and understand them on an emotional level it works wonders. I try to do all these things. People have a part of their brain that's illogical and in the case of Nazi Germany that part of the brain can be very dangerous as well. The thing is if I ever gave a speech as a scientist I'd try to make things fun and exciting as well as inspiring them. I wouldn't speak in a droll boring monotone just throwing statistics in their face and only asking for evidence.

With some of the more logical and unemotional people pure statistics and evidence will help. The problem is when some people fail to look at all the other dimensions and things that are at work. All the statistics and evidence in the world isn't going to make people feel anything... For that you need to relate on another level of emotion and understanding (or maybe that's just my philosophy). Also I took a lot of classes on rhetoric and rhetoric isn't something that you can grow and study in a science lab.
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 4:09 pm 

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:31 pm wrote:Perhaps I should just butt out of this discussion, if it is only between you are Revolutionary?
Why on Earth would you think that it was only between him and me? This is a forum for general discussion. Sometimes you say the most bizarre things.

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:31 pm wrote:But if this is a discussion for all members of the forum, list the assertions you disagree with and I will see what I can do to find the research papers that meet the standard's of the forum..
Im not sure I disagree with any of them. You and probably Revolutionary made the assumption that because I was questioning assertions and asking for evidence that I must therefore be opposed to those assertions. From my perspective that is a most unproductive viewpoint.

If you think I have been harsh demanding this evidence from Revolutionary you should see the demands I place upon myself. I'm handling him with kid gloves in comparison.

All that said, when I get a quite moment, I'll go back through the thread and extract the assertions that I feel most require the supporting data.

Athena » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:31 pm wrote:I said: Believing it is someone's responsibility to inform us when we believe we already know, is combative.

You said:
Discourteously refusing to provide support for assertions one claims are more than an opinion is combative.

You are asking for an argument and that is combative.
I'm not asking for an argument. I'm disputing your accusations. I'm reacting to your combative posting.

What I should have said is that your "Believing it is someone's responsibility to inform us when we believe we already know, is combative." is a strawman. I'm not saying that. I did not say that. I will never say that.

I suspect Revolutionary lacks the skill to find the necessary research papers to support what he is saying from his point of view.
In that case he has arrived at his POV based entirely on personal experience and chance anecdote. To initiate an attempted major change to an important system based upon such a flaky base is irresponsible.


Judging his failure as being discourteous, instead of a lack of skill, may not be the correct judgment, but your judgment would justify bashing him for not complying with your demand. On the other hand, feminine and liberal me thinks things might go better if they are handled differently.
Well, left wing, tree hugging, socialist, free thinking liberal me thinks things generally go a hell of a lot better when we deal with facts rather than well meaning wishful thinking.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 27th, 2017, 4:13 pm 

I gave you the four points you brought up Eclogite why don't you respond to that?
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 4:29 pm 

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:44 pm wrote:Wow Athena great way of putting it. I had a public speaking class myself and we value ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos appeals to ethics, pathos appeals to emotion, and logos appeals to logic. Some scientific thinkers tend to undervalue pathos and only appeal to logos and ethos and my public speaking teacher also said this about a scientist.
We are not conducting a public speaking class. I'm trying to help you dispassionately determine the best way of achieving your goals.

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:44 pm wrote: Eclogite you know well that people who are polarizing don't bring up research papers and whatnot. How did you think someone like Hitler rose to power? He didn't use research papers and logical arguments (unfortunately) he was a demagogue and got people riled up.
I have no idea what you are driving at here. If you are saying that in selling your idea you may need to speak with passion I won't disagree with you. (I don't speak German, but any time I watch film of Hitler giving a speech I have an almost uncontrollable urge to invade Russia.)

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:44 pm wrote: The problem with that is that sometimes you can be logical and ethical but, for people to listen you have to have that human element of emotion. A bunch of statistics thrown at someones face especially someone who is suffering isn't really going to make them feel anything. On the other hand if you try to relate and understand them on an emotional level it works wonders. .
The people who are suffering are not the main ones you need to convince. If you have not adequately defined the problem and how it arose you are farting in an elevator. It achieves nothing and people choose to avoid you.

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:44 pm wrote: I try to do all these things. People have a part of their brain that's illogical and in the case of Nazi Germany that part of the brain can be very dangerous as well. The thing is if I ever gave a speech as a scientist I'd try to make things fun and exciting as well as inspiring them. I wouldn't speak in a droll boring monotone just throwing statistics in their face and only asking for evidence.
Good for you. About half the scientists I know are inspiring in their talks, even when they are demanding evidence. If you have had a different experience it tends to support my suggestion that basing ones views on personal experience is risky methodology.


Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:44 pm wrote: IWith some of the more logical and unemotional people pure statistics and evidence will help. The problem is when some people fail to look at all the other dimensions and things that are at work. All the statistics and evidence in the world isn't going to make people feel anything... For that you need to relate on another level of emotion and understanding (or maybe that's just my philosophy). Also I took a lot of classes on rhetoric and rhetoric isn't something that you can grow and study in a science lab.
I think I could come up with an outline study program for "growing and studying rhetoric" in a science lab in about an hour. I recommend you try the same thing as an exercise in lateral thinking. It would certainly be much easier than what you are attempting.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 4:33 pm 

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:13 pm wrote:I gave you the four points you brought up Eclogite why don't you respond to that?
That sentence does not seem to parse. How can you give me points that I brought up? Do you mean you addressed points I brought up? And if so which four points. I'm confused. Please clarify.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Revolutionary on February 27th, 2017, 4:40 pm 

Well yes I responded to the four questions you had for me right before Athena responded to the things you were saying.
Revolutionary
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 4:45 pm 

Revolutionary » February 27th, 2017, 1:19 pm wrote:1. What's wrong with the present system is that there is no bridge between the education world and the career world out of high school (not everyone wants to go to College/University) What is also wrong is that I was told at a young age to just do well in school and after I did well in school I'd have a lucrative career and wouldn't end up working in a minimum wage job. That's what I was told by my teachers and parents all throughout my childhood and adolescents. Low and behold they were all WRONG. That's because everything they told me the opposite turned out to be true. No employer ever looked or cared about my grades they cared about skills but, the education system didn't give me the skills to function in a job market only random trivia that I could use if I were a contestant on some game show like "who wants to be a millionaire". Not only that but, it was sickening that I went through so much stress during my educational career with the "promise" that it'd all be worth it in the end when I got that "job" which was also a lie. Later I found out the job market was like Vegas it was a gamble whether you did well in school or not and it wasn't about what you know but, who you know (networking) which isn't so easy for an introverted person such as myself.


It was not that long ago when high schools provided vocational skills and the majority when straight from high school into the workforce. Heck, it didn't even require a high school diploma to get good paying jobs that would support a family and enable the wife to stay home and raise the children. When I came of age in LA California, it was possible to go to an employment and walk out with one's choice in a factory job, go the factory to sign up for work, and go to work the next work day. If a person lost the job, within a week a person could have another job. People didn't even have to know how to read of write to get these jobs. That industrial base is no longer in the US, but with a college degree, you might get a job a fast food restaurant or Walmart. That won't pay off your student loan but you might be able to share an apartment with someone in the same boat you are in.

Part of the problem in using relevant research papers to support arguments is finding them and having to go through pages and pages of links that are far from the question asked. One has to question if it is worth the effort, but I will put in the effort and see.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, according to Brynjolfsson, is a chart that only an economist could love. In economics, productivity—the amount of economic value created for a given unit of input, such as an hour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth and wealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On the chart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. The pattern is clear: as businesses generated more value from their workers, the country as a whole became richer, which fueled more economic activity and created even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly, but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the “great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he is confident that technology is behind both the healthy growth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.


I like this piece of information because I strongly dislike what forcing women into the workforce has done to families...
http://www.mybudget360.com/two-income-t ... o-keep-up/

The two income trap
Back in 1965 47% of families had both spouses working. That figure is now up to 66% and it is extremely rare to find a household where only the husband works. You also find it more common today that a household will have only the wife working.
Women entering the workforce has shifted how people deal with daily life. But the thought of economic freedom by having an additional income in the household has been largely swept away by inflation. Take a look at this chart:



2. Your guess is as good as mine as to how these problems arose. I am a millennial born in 1988 so by the time I was born I'm pretty sure in the past years that education had it's defects way before I was born. As Athena said it may have been the 1958 NDEA. All I knew is that some of my teachers hated their jobs, assigned too much work, and talked about how they wanted to be doing something else. Students are there by force and teachers have a choice but, when they choose to make learning miserable and have tenure there is nothing the students can do... Fascism much? I mean we have no rights and everything is done to us by force.

What change are you talking about? The 1958 National Defense Education Act changed the purpose of education. It replaced liberal education with education for technology, and dropped the transmission of our culture that was built on family order and left moral training to the church, which is a complete is disaster reverting our democracy as Germany's democracy was perverted, and establishing the US as a very expensive Military Industrial Complex, supported by taxpayers who are the big losers!

3. A point of improvement are for these ignorant schools to not be stuck in the past. Why are we still using the industrial model when we live in a time when technological shifts are so fast and rapid. Why is it that schools (at least my high school I went to) don't teach about money and finances. If we're going to have to function in adult society we need to be prepared to know how to not run out of money and make money? In my opinion to survive and live a decent life you need money so why the hell is it that getting a job has turned into a gamble and a numbers game when you went and spent all that time, energy, and effort on all your tests, quizzes, essays, and projects to be told it's all for your future then when you get a piece of paper which is a diploma and you have a job interview it has nothing to do with all those things that you've done in school I find that to be sickening.


Because our mentality has not caught up with the changed. Proof- We elected Trump. Hello, we have prepared everyone for the Military Industrial Complex, and the philosophy behind that is life is too complex and everyone should be dependent on the Prussian bureaucracy that has been established over the people and the masses are prepared to like parts for the Borg, to follow orders and not think too much. Who was supposed to think about the direction we are headed and the consequences? This hit before I left high school and a teacher warned us we better be thinking about when robotics means we don't work 40 weeks, but I heard no mention of this again, until just recently. In the meantime, children are learning math good for high tech jobs, and completely valueless for daily life, and this math is so different from the math parents had, the parents can not help their children with the math. Math has to be learned one step at a time, and if a step is missed, the student can go no further. Yet teachers are too busy to help struggling students and their parents can't help them, and we don't need the mass of poorly educated people we have. We have some very serious disconnects.

4. I laid out a plan in this blog post that I wrote up in January.
http://bakshandehariel.wixsite.com/webs ... -Solutions[/quote]
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Revolutionary liked this post


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 4:48 pm 

Quoting Eclogite.. Why on Earth would you think that it was only between him and me? This is a forum for general discussion. Sometimes you say the most bizarre things.


Because your post are about your displeasure with him and me, and I haven't figured out what points you want supported with research papers. Whatever, I need to take a break.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 5:02 pm 

Revolutionary » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:40 pm wrote:Well yes I responded to the four questions you had for me right before Athena responded to the things you were saying.
What had confused me is that I did not ask you four questions. I now see you are probably referring to my statement (not question) that four things were necessary in order to change things efficiently. It's late. So it may be tomorrow before I respond. I see there are two posts from Athena I have not addressed.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Eclogite on February 27th, 2017, 5:13 pm 

@Athena. I just deleted a lengthy response to your earlier unaddressed post. I decided to make it as simple as possible.

Several times you refer to my opinion and note at least once that you cannot agree with my opinion. For the record would you be good enough to tell me what you think my opinion is?
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 9:21 pm 

Eclogite » February 16th, 2017, 1:30 am wrote:
Revolutionary » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:07 am wrote:I felt like I had absolutely no freedom.
What sort of freedom would you have liked to have had?


I can not speak for Revolutionary, but I wish it were law that industry must use the democratic model and that we returned to education for democracy. I think that would be awesome!
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Is there a science to happiness?

Postby Athena on February 27th, 2017, 9:30 pm 

Athena » February 16th, 2017, 2:37 pm wrote:
Revolutionary » February 4th, 2017, 3:45 pm wrote:We never seem to learn about how we can stay happy when we grow up in the schools. Should there be classes on figuring out what makes you happy? Also when you figure that out how to live your adult life in a way that you can for the most part remain happy?



Absolutely! Then everyone would understand that our Declaration of Independence does mean the freedom to do anything we please when it says we have a "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". All would understand the connection between morality and liberty and that the pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of knowledge, and they would understand what this has to do with democracy and being responsible citizens with duties to family and country. Such knowledge would make a huge cultural difference and get our democracy back on track. And today, that would even be more valuable than in the past because of all the recent science that supports the ideals of this past philosophy that lead to replacing monarchies with democracy.


Whoops, forgot the word "not" our freedom does not mean the freedom to do anything we please or say anything we want. All freedoms are restricted by a sense of decency and morality. However, a friend in India is pushing for my awareness of the downside of these considerations. Such as restricting media and preventing women from having a voice because they are wanting greater power and freedom, and what they want is considered indecent. Judgment calls on such matters can be very challenging.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Revolutionary liked this post


PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests