Context
One of the messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today referenced this blog post. I encourage you to read it yourself, but here's the quick summary: it's about using a learning cycle consisting of assimilation, accommodation, and organization as a model for library instruction.
Commentary
This is my interpretation of the learning cycle described by Frierson: assimilation is when we receive information, accommodation is how we match up new information to what we already know, and organization is how we decide to use the information. Let me give an example of how this works: I look at my thermometer and assimilate that the temperature outside is 49 degrees Fahrenheit. I accommodate this knowledge by remembering that in the past when it has been 49 degrees, I've been pretty chilly. I organize the information by deciding to wear a coat.
Teaching is often treated as just a process of putting information out there so students can assimilate it. In return, students sometimes bypass accommodation entirely and only organize the information so they can regurgitate it on an exam. Teachers are frustrated because students don't appear to learn; students are frustrated because teachers don't appear to offer anything of lasting value (Where am I ever going to diagram sentences in the real world?).
Early in his teaching career, my husband attended a workshop called Teaching and Learning. He learned all kinds of useful stuff there; I learned for the first time that education is not just about teaching, but about learning as well. In other words, you can be the best teacher in the whole world, but if your students aren't learning, it's a pointless exercise for everyone. This can be terrifying to teachers, because although we have complete control over how we present information, we have no control over how students accommodate it or organize it. The best we can hope for is to accompany them in that process and maybe learn something ourselves.
There's also a time factor. Presenting information generally doesn't take long, whether we talk, or give the students something to read, or even demonstrate a task. However, waiting for each individual student to find existing knowledge in his/her brain to tack the new information to and decide how she/he wants to use it is not only time-consuming, it's unpredictably time-consuming.
A typical response is to say we don't have time to teach that way. I don't buy it. Here is my philosophy about time: we have time to do everything we really want to do. I have a similar philosophy about money, but I won't go into that. Anyway, when it comes to time constraints, I think what we're really saying is we don't have time to do something and . . . "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight" really means "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight and go to bed early so I can get up early tomorrow and not be sleepy." We're setting some priorities, which is reasonable, but it's not the same as having no time to do the dishes.
So why don't we have time to teach in such a way that students will want to learn and be successful doing so? Because what we prioritize more highly is "covering material." Of all the insidious ideas to infiltrate education, this has got to be the worst. OK, I'm not super fond of group work either, but I digress. I don't know how we ever got to a place where we believe it is more important for a teacher to get through a certain number of lessons or concepts or textbook pages than it is for students to actually learn something.
Actually, I'm lying. I know exactly how we got here; it's through mistrust and laziness. We don't trust teachers to teach, so we want to evaluate them. But measuring how much a student has learned, as opposed to how much he/she can remember at test time, is difficult. So we settle for a quantitative measure, like a percentage of right answers, instead of a qualitative one, like how good a student is at formulating worthwhile answers to substantive questions of her/his own devising. But man, that material gets covered!
What did you see today?
2/20/2011
I saw an article about banking policy
Context
I ran across this article in the Shreveport Times this morning about the Federal Reserve and Congress trying to determine the best method for regulating debit card fees, as mandated by last year's financial overhaul bill. The difficulty appears to be in getting merchants and banks to share the pain equitably.
Commentary
As far as I can tell from the article, the banks are saying they shouldn't be limited on how much they charge merchants for debit card swipes because they play an important role in the economic recovery effort and merchants are saying they need a break on these fees because they play an important role in the economic recovery effort. Taking this bait, federal officials seem to be trying to decide which of the two factions' role is more important. I think this approach is wrongheaded because both the merchants and the banks make compelling cases in this regard.
Here's another thing both parties are doing: they're trying desperately to hide these fees from the consumer. The merchants are saying when they pay high debit card swipe fees, they have to either charge customers more for goods, which may lose them customers, or cut their profit margins, which means cutting jobs. Bankers say if they have to cover the costs of fraud protection, etc. themselves, they'll have to eliminate free checking accounts which, you guessed it, may lose them customers. Neither seems to want to say directly to the consumer, "The convenience of using a debit card at the grocery store has a cost; please pay it."
Ellen Ruppel Shell, in her excellent book Cheap: the high cost of discount culture, says this is a common problem in our current culture: we have become so obsessed with "getting a good deal" that no one wants to pay the fair price for anything. Shell mostly talks about how we ignore substandard goods and/or substandard working conditions in order to fuel this overriding need, but I think the paradigm applies to other situations as well.
So I would like to propose that we take the honest approach: the Federal Reserve should determine how much a debit card swipe at a merchant costs and the banks should charge the consumers that amount per swipe. Then we could actually make (Gasp!) informed decisions about whether the convenience is worth that price instead of everybody trying to fool each other about what's going on.
What did you see today?
I ran across this article in the Shreveport Times this morning about the Federal Reserve and Congress trying to determine the best method for regulating debit card fees, as mandated by last year's financial overhaul bill. The difficulty appears to be in getting merchants and banks to share the pain equitably.
Commentary
As far as I can tell from the article, the banks are saying they shouldn't be limited on how much they charge merchants for debit card swipes because they play an important role in the economic recovery effort and merchants are saying they need a break on these fees because they play an important role in the economic recovery effort. Taking this bait, federal officials seem to be trying to decide which of the two factions' role is more important. I think this approach is wrongheaded because both the merchants and the banks make compelling cases in this regard.
Here's another thing both parties are doing: they're trying desperately to hide these fees from the consumer. The merchants are saying when they pay high debit card swipe fees, they have to either charge customers more for goods, which may lose them customers, or cut their profit margins, which means cutting jobs. Bankers say if they have to cover the costs of fraud protection, etc. themselves, they'll have to eliminate free checking accounts which, you guessed it, may lose them customers. Neither seems to want to say directly to the consumer, "The convenience of using a debit card at the grocery store has a cost; please pay it."
Ellen Ruppel Shell, in her excellent book Cheap: the high cost of discount culture, says this is a common problem in our current culture: we have become so obsessed with "getting a good deal" that no one wants to pay the fair price for anything. Shell mostly talks about how we ignore substandard goods and/or substandard working conditions in order to fuel this overriding need, but I think the paradigm applies to other situations as well.
So I would like to propose that we take the honest approach: the Federal Reserve should determine how much a debit card swipe at a merchant costs and the banks should charge the consumers that amount per swipe. Then we could actually make (Gasp!) informed decisions about whether the convenience is worth that price instead of everybody trying to fool each other about what's going on.
What did you see today?
2/15/2011
I saw responses to unwelcome opinions
Context
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.
Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.
The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.
These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?
What did you see today?
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.
Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.
The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.
These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?
What did you see today?
2/07/2011
I saw an unfamiliar medical condition
Context
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.
Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.
I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.
2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.
3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.
Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.
It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."
For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.
What did you see today?
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.
Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.
I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.
2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.
3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.
Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.
It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."
For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.
What did you see today?
2/02/2011
I saw an obituary
Context
As mentioned earlier I got my B.A. from Rice University. I received an alumni e-mail today that contained a link to this media page on the university website, containing obituaries for two young men who died over the winter break. The cause of death was only listed for one of them, Brandon Cook. After a local media search on the other, Dexter Gannon, I learned his death was ruled a suicide.
Commentary
Suicide was a touchy subject while I was at Rice. There was a widely-held perception that at some times in its history, Rice's emphasis on academic achievement had led to an unhealthy hypercompetitiveness and, in its turn, a high suicide rate. During my undergraduate years, the administration sought to fight this trend by keeping both the scholarship standards and the level of emotional support high. They also blocked off student access to the balcony of the bell tower.
So why did they keep mum about the cause of Dexter Gannon's death twenty-five years later? I suppose you could argue that it was to save his loved ones pain, but that seems flimsy, given that his loved ones presumably knew about the coroner's ruling.
Another explanation might be that Rice wanted to save ether the family or itself embarrassment. I find this idea disturbing, as I would like us to get to a point in our culture where we no longer consider mental difficulties shameful.
Regardless, I think it was a bad decision. I don't think covering up the tragic aspects of life really helps anyone. I believe light and air are far better cures for what ails us. After all, the It Gets Better project was started in the wake of gay teen suicides. But we had to talk about the suicides first.
What did you see today?
As mentioned earlier I got my B.A. from Rice University. I received an alumni e-mail today that contained a link to this media page on the university website, containing obituaries for two young men who died over the winter break. The cause of death was only listed for one of them, Brandon Cook. After a local media search on the other, Dexter Gannon, I learned his death was ruled a suicide.
Commentary
Suicide was a touchy subject while I was at Rice. There was a widely-held perception that at some times in its history, Rice's emphasis on academic achievement had led to an unhealthy hypercompetitiveness and, in its turn, a high suicide rate. During my undergraduate years, the administration sought to fight this trend by keeping both the scholarship standards and the level of emotional support high. They also blocked off student access to the balcony of the bell tower.
So why did they keep mum about the cause of Dexter Gannon's death twenty-five years later? I suppose you could argue that it was to save his loved ones pain, but that seems flimsy, given that his loved ones presumably knew about the coroner's ruling.
Another explanation might be that Rice wanted to save ether the family or itself embarrassment. I find this idea disturbing, as I would like us to get to a point in our culture where we no longer consider mental difficulties shameful.
Regardless, I think it was a bad decision. I don't think covering up the tragic aspects of life really helps anyone. I believe light and air are far better cures for what ails us. After all, the It Gets Better project was started in the wake of gay teen suicides. But we had to talk about the suicides first.
What did you see today?
1/24/2011
I saw a description of violence
Context
I'm reading Our Choice of Gods by Richard Parrish. It's a novel about the roots and consequences of conflict in Palestine, starting with Jewish lives destroyed by the Holocaust, which leads to the Israelis' callousness toward the Palestinians in the Holy Land, which in turn causes the Palestinians to embrace terrorism, and so on and so on. I picked up the book because, although the causes of violence are obvious to me, I was interested to see what would make someone turn the other way and actually embrace peace.
Commentary
When I was in college I came to the conclusion that, popular opinion to the side, men were actually much more romantic than women. "Romantic" in this case meaning they were much more likely to believe in things like love at first sight and eternal soul mates than the women I knew, who talked more about "not losing your head" and "making the relationship work."
"Wow, you've really gone far afield there, Lynn." Bear with me; I'm coming back. Similarly to the way conventional wisdom says women are romantic, it also says pacifists are hopelessly unrealistic in their view of a world where everyone gives each other warm fuzzies all the time. Actually, that's not what I believe as a pacifist, but more importantly, I think the proponents of violence are far more impractical than I am, in that they believe they can harness that wildfire to a particular set of goals.
Consider Palestine. This is an area of the world where two groups of people (well, actually about 500 groups of people, but let's try to keep it simple) hold the following belief: there is some act of violence we can commit that will cause the other group to leave this place and never come back. Over time, some members of both groups have given this belief up, but there is a seemingly endless supply of instigators who pop up and say, "No, no, this time I have a plan that will win us a decisive victory," the evidence of the past 60 years (or the past several thousand, but again, I'm trying to simplify) notwithstanding. How is that more realistic than pacifism, which often says at its base, "I don't respond well to force. Therefore I'm going to assume you don't either."?
What did you see today?
I'm reading Our Choice of Gods by Richard Parrish. It's a novel about the roots and consequences of conflict in Palestine, starting with Jewish lives destroyed by the Holocaust, which leads to the Israelis' callousness toward the Palestinians in the Holy Land, which in turn causes the Palestinians to embrace terrorism, and so on and so on. I picked up the book because, although the causes of violence are obvious to me, I was interested to see what would make someone turn the other way and actually embrace peace.
Commentary
When I was in college I came to the conclusion that, popular opinion to the side, men were actually much more romantic than women. "Romantic" in this case meaning they were much more likely to believe in things like love at first sight and eternal soul mates than the women I knew, who talked more about "not losing your head" and "making the relationship work."
"Wow, you've really gone far afield there, Lynn." Bear with me; I'm coming back. Similarly to the way conventional wisdom says women are romantic, it also says pacifists are hopelessly unrealistic in their view of a world where everyone gives each other warm fuzzies all the time. Actually, that's not what I believe as a pacifist, but more importantly, I think the proponents of violence are far more impractical than I am, in that they believe they can harness that wildfire to a particular set of goals.
Consider Palestine. This is an area of the world where two groups of people (well, actually about 500 groups of people, but let's try to keep it simple) hold the following belief: there is some act of violence we can commit that will cause the other group to leave this place and never come back. Over time, some members of both groups have given this belief up, but there is a seemingly endless supply of instigators who pop up and say, "No, no, this time I have a plan that will win us a decisive victory," the evidence of the past 60 years (or the past several thousand, but again, I'm trying to simplify) notwithstanding. How is that more realistic than pacifism, which often says at its base, "I don't respond well to force. Therefore I'm going to assume you don't either."?
What did you see today?
12/16/2010
I saw an icon on my desktop
Context
I was sending material to the consultant who's setting up an intranet for Shreve Memorial today. While I was working, I happened to notice the icon for editing the library's new website that I put on my desktop a few days ago.
Commentary
OK, I know, "Way to put nothing useful in the Context, Lynn!" The reason the juxtaposition above struck me as interesting is that I was not entirely happy about the way either our website or our intranet was set up. Yet here I was, happily contributing to both of them now that they are faits accompli. That's pretty much normal for me; once a decision is made I prefer to deal with the new reality rather than stewing or sulking. I'm not passive-aggressive, in other words. Aggressive-aggressive, but not passive-aggressive.
So does that mean I cave when I lose an argument? Maybe. For me it just means acknowledging the argument is in fact lost, that I can see things not go my way and I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reset the universe. Plus it doesn't seem weak to me; it seems empowering. A decision gets made; I don't agree with it; I then get to make my own decision whether to adapt, fight openly, or leave, all of which sound more productive to me than denial or sabotage.
Frankly, sometimes my flexibility in accommodating different viewpoints feels like a great intellectual and/or spiritual achievement to me. And yes, sometimes I go along with a new procedure just so I can be around to see how spectacularly it'll fail. So maybe I'm a little passive-aggressive.
What did you see today?
I was sending material to the consultant who's setting up an intranet for Shreve Memorial today. While I was working, I happened to notice the icon for editing the library's new website that I put on my desktop a few days ago.
Commentary
OK, I know, "Way to put nothing useful in the Context, Lynn!" The reason the juxtaposition above struck me as interesting is that I was not entirely happy about the way either our website or our intranet was set up. Yet here I was, happily contributing to both of them now that they are faits accompli. That's pretty much normal for me; once a decision is made I prefer to deal with the new reality rather than stewing or sulking. I'm not passive-aggressive, in other words. Aggressive-aggressive, but not passive-aggressive.
So does that mean I cave when I lose an argument? Maybe. For me it just means acknowledging the argument is in fact lost, that I can see things not go my way and I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reset the universe. Plus it doesn't seem weak to me; it seems empowering. A decision gets made; I don't agree with it; I then get to make my own decision whether to adapt, fight openly, or leave, all of which sound more productive to me than denial or sabotage.
Frankly, sometimes my flexibility in accommodating different viewpoints feels like a great intellectual and/or spiritual achievement to me. And yes, sometimes I go along with a new procedure just so I can be around to see how spectacularly it'll fail. So maybe I'm a little passive-aggressive.
What did you see today?
11/10/2010
I saw a description of groupings
Context
I read Andrew Sullivan's article about the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on The Atlantic's website today. In it, he mentions that although we have three major political groups in the United States (Republicans, Democrats and Independents), we also have three cultural one (idealogues, pragmatists, and the totally indifferent).
Commentary
At first I thought I liked the idea of cultural groupings as opposed to political ones because I don't really fit comfortably into a Republican, Democratic, or Independent box. I mean, I usually self-identify as Independent, but as Inigo Montoya would say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
"Independent" for me does not imply "centrist," but rather "left of Democratic." I often vote Democrat, but I'll be danged if I'll call myself one! And if I'm completely honest, I have to say I'm sometimes to the right of the average Democrat as well, especially when it comes to intellectual freedom.
On the other hand, I don't really belong exclusively to an idealistic, pragmatic or indifferent culture either. I'm generally pragmatic, but when it comes to certain bedrock principles (peace, integrity, equality, simplicity), I can be just as dogmatic as the next person. And there are some political issues I'm not interested in. Local elections in Shreveport often revolve around code enforcement. I try to care, but I really don't.
No, I think what attracts me to the cultural groupings described by Sullivan is not that they describe me better, but that they seem to allow for a lot more flexibility in our political dialogue. Maybe I'm being all too pragmatic, but doesn't it seem like things would go better if we could just acknowledge these different characteristics in each other?
Try this on for size: "Oh, that's an issue that's of deep personal concern to you and my treating it clinically is not helpful. Go ahead and tell me about your passion and I'll listen because I care about you as a person."
Or maybe: "I can see you're not as vested in this problem as I am, so I won't waste time for both of us trying to bring you over to my side."
Even: "No, I wouldn't dream of calling you a RINO because your interests are different from mine. That would be rude."
What did you see today?
I read Andrew Sullivan's article about the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on The Atlantic's website today. In it, he mentions that although we have three major political groups in the United States (Republicans, Democrats and Independents), we also have three cultural one (idealogues, pragmatists, and the totally indifferent).
Commentary
At first I thought I liked the idea of cultural groupings as opposed to political ones because I don't really fit comfortably into a Republican, Democratic, or Independent box. I mean, I usually self-identify as Independent, but as Inigo Montoya would say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
"Independent" for me does not imply "centrist," but rather "left of Democratic." I often vote Democrat, but I'll be danged if I'll call myself one! And if I'm completely honest, I have to say I'm sometimes to the right of the average Democrat as well, especially when it comes to intellectual freedom.
On the other hand, I don't really belong exclusively to an idealistic, pragmatic or indifferent culture either. I'm generally pragmatic, but when it comes to certain bedrock principles (peace, integrity, equality, simplicity), I can be just as dogmatic as the next person. And there are some political issues I'm not interested in. Local elections in Shreveport often revolve around code enforcement. I try to care, but I really don't.
No, I think what attracts me to the cultural groupings described by Sullivan is not that they describe me better, but that they seem to allow for a lot more flexibility in our political dialogue. Maybe I'm being all too pragmatic, but doesn't it seem like things would go better if we could just acknowledge these different characteristics in each other?
Try this on for size: "Oh, that's an issue that's of deep personal concern to you and my treating it clinically is not helpful. Go ahead and tell me about your passion and I'll listen because I care about you as a person."
Or maybe: "I can see you're not as vested in this problem as I am, so I won't waste time for both of us trying to bring you over to my side."
Even: "No, I wouldn't dream of calling you a RINO because your interests are different from mine. That would be rude."
What did you see today?
11/05/2010
I saw another bumper sticker
Context
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.
Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.
Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.
I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.
What did you see today?
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.
Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.
Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.
I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.
What did you see today?
11/02/2010
I saw someone not getting the point
Context
I watcheda portion of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman on the web today. I was interested in it because it referenced the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, an event I really, really wanted to go to but settled for watching on TV. I didn't watch the entire segment, because I think I understood the points Olberman was making early on. The Countdown segment has an edited version of what Jon Stewart had to say at the rally; you can find unedited video here, by scrolling down on the left side to Moment of Sincerity.
Commentary
I think Keith Olberman was trying to say two things in his response to Jon Stewart:
1. "Maybe I should try to tone down the unproductive anger." No argument here. I love the Daily Show in general, but this rally in particular spoke to me, because I believe reason desperately needs to be restored to our national discourse.
Trust me, I am never one to walk away from an argument. But that's because I want my opinion heard and I want to hear its counterpoint. For the same reason, and possibly because of my family background, I cheerfully walk away from shouting matches. No one's getting heard there, which in some ways is OK with me because I'm pretty sure little of value is being said. Or, as Jon Stewart says in the clip referenced above, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
2. "It's not demonizing your opponent if your opponent really is a demon." True enough, Keith, but as I think Jon was trying to explain, this is not applicable to anyone currently active in American politics.
It's funny. Even though the term "reactionary" is supposed to apply to ultra-conservative people, I think the literal definition fits Keith Olberman to a T. His standard MO is to hear an outrageous statement from the right and respond by making an equally outrageous statement. But he would have us believe there is no actual equivalence because he's on the side of truth, justice and the American way and his opponents are prone to sacrificing cute little kittens on the altar of bad journalism.
I don't buy it. I don't think two wrongs make a right, I cannot be convinced that good ends ever justify bad means, and absent seeing horns growing out of their heads or smelling brimstone on their breaths, I refuse to believe that people with values and beliefs that differ from mine are demons. Because that would be insane.
What did you see today?
I watcheda portion of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman on the web today. I was interested in it because it referenced the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, an event I really, really wanted to go to but settled for watching on TV. I didn't watch the entire segment, because I think I understood the points Olberman was making early on. The Countdown segment has an edited version of what Jon Stewart had to say at the rally; you can find unedited video here, by scrolling down on the left side to Moment of Sincerity.
Commentary
I think Keith Olberman was trying to say two things in his response to Jon Stewart:
1. "Maybe I should try to tone down the unproductive anger." No argument here. I love the Daily Show in general, but this rally in particular spoke to me, because I believe reason desperately needs to be restored to our national discourse.
Trust me, I am never one to walk away from an argument. But that's because I want my opinion heard and I want to hear its counterpoint. For the same reason, and possibly because of my family background, I cheerfully walk away from shouting matches. No one's getting heard there, which in some ways is OK with me because I'm pretty sure little of value is being said. Or, as Jon Stewart says in the clip referenced above, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
2. "It's not demonizing your opponent if your opponent really is a demon." True enough, Keith, but as I think Jon was trying to explain, this is not applicable to anyone currently active in American politics.
It's funny. Even though the term "reactionary" is supposed to apply to ultra-conservative people, I think the literal definition fits Keith Olberman to a T. His standard MO is to hear an outrageous statement from the right and respond by making an equally outrageous statement. But he would have us believe there is no actual equivalence because he's on the side of truth, justice and the American way and his opponents are prone to sacrificing cute little kittens on the altar of bad journalism.
I don't buy it. I don't think two wrongs make a right, I cannot be convinced that good ends ever justify bad means, and absent seeing horns growing out of their heads or smelling brimstone on their breaths, I refuse to believe that people with values and beliefs that differ from mine are demons. Because that would be insane.
What did you see today?
9/19/2010
I saw a printing error
Context
I was reading this article in the hard copy Shreveport Times today. The print version of the article ended with 'An analysis of the charity's reports to the IRS show contributions have steadily increased over the last three years, reaching nearly $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2009, the most recent for"
Commentary
It appears that the Times didn't allow enough column space for this article, because the version I've linked to not only completes the sentence referenced above, it also contains two more full paragraphs! I remarked to my husband that making a calculation like that should be part of Printing 101. He said the problem was probably that decisions about spacing were left to the printing software. As an information technology worker I said, "Yup, that would be a problem all right."
The information technology department at Shreve Memorial Library is called "Automation." This is a holdover from the time when our main purpose as an organizational unit was converting our card catalog and manual circulation system (Are you old enough to remember when someone had to match a card from a book to a card with your name and put them in a file box together?) to automated objects.
This is an example, and I think a positive one, of how computer systems promote efficiency. However, because of instances like I saw today, I don't think it's a good idea to let computers replace people. When we do, we risk making significant sacrifices, because computers lack judgment and an understanding of nuance.
It seems to me that this was something automobile manufacturers and others learned in the 1980s, when they emphasized that a person could stop an automated assembly line if they saw something wrong. What was interesting about this movement is that it led not only to improved product, but also improved worker morale.
It's not surprising that as creatures with imaginative and subtle brains, we prefer to do work that uses them, not just perform the same tasks over and over again like cogs in a machine. But as consumers we often favor cheap, easy-to-find, or faddish items over high-quality ones. So we make it hard for human labor to be both successful and fulfilling, which I think is a shame.
What did you see today?
I was reading this article in the hard copy Shreveport Times today. The print version of the article ended with 'An analysis of the charity's reports to the IRS show contributions have steadily increased over the last three years, reaching nearly $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2009, the most recent for"
Commentary
It appears that the Times didn't allow enough column space for this article, because the version I've linked to not only completes the sentence referenced above, it also contains two more full paragraphs! I remarked to my husband that making a calculation like that should be part of Printing 101. He said the problem was probably that decisions about spacing were left to the printing software. As an information technology worker I said, "Yup, that would be a problem all right."
The information technology department at Shreve Memorial Library is called "Automation." This is a holdover from the time when our main purpose as an organizational unit was converting our card catalog and manual circulation system (Are you old enough to remember when someone had to match a card from a book to a card with your name and put them in a file box together?) to automated objects.
This is an example, and I think a positive one, of how computer systems promote efficiency. However, because of instances like I saw today, I don't think it's a good idea to let computers replace people. When we do, we risk making significant sacrifices, because computers lack judgment and an understanding of nuance.
It seems to me that this was something automobile manufacturers and others learned in the 1980s, when they emphasized that a person could stop an automated assembly line if they saw something wrong. What was interesting about this movement is that it led not only to improved product, but also improved worker morale.
It's not surprising that as creatures with imaginative and subtle brains, we prefer to do work that uses them, not just perform the same tasks over and over again like cogs in a machine. But as consumers we often favor cheap, easy-to-find, or faddish items over high-quality ones. So we make it hard for human labor to be both successful and fulfilling, which I think is a shame.
What did you see today?
8/13/2010
I saw a contradiction
Context
I am currently reading Acres of Diamonds, a speech given by Russell Conwell, the founder of Temple University. I'm reading it in book form, and on page 41, Conwell tells a story about John Jacob Astor's success coming in small part because when he owned a hat shop, he only sold bonnets copied from ones he had seen contented ladies wearing. Then, on page 47, Conwell talks about how important great inventors are in a capitalist society.
Commentary
Acres of Diamonds is a polemic extolling the virtues of making money, almost to the exclusion of all else, so I'm probably predisposed to pick it apart. It was funny though, I read the Astor story and said to myself, "So Conwell is saying innovation is bad." Then I got to page 47 and thought, "Unless it's a successful innovation that makes money. Then he's saying it's good!"
I think this odd juxtaposition struck me harder because earlier this week I was in a two-day workshop where I thought the consultant contradicted herself repeatedly. In fact, there were enough instances that I thought I could develop a pretty good drinking game based on them, but you know how punchy you get at these things.
Anyway, these two sets of circumstances got me thinking about why people contradict themselves and why we as listeners sometimes don't notice. I came up with two reasons:
1) Someone is presenting so much information that contradictions kind of creep in unnoticed. I think this is applicable not only to Conwell, who seemed to want to say everything good about capitalism at once and the consultant, who was trying to fit a great deal of material about library planning into two days, but also the world in general these days, where so much information is available that it's hard to take a moment and realize that "A" cannot exist in the same universe as "B." I think we should pay attention if this is happening, and you can count on The Daily Show to point out as many of them as they can get their hands on, but morally the phenomenon is pretty benign.
2) Someone is so intent on making a point that they will use whatever arguments are at hand, even if they make no logical sense. This is not so benign and nearly impossible to combat. It is the argument that starts with, "We know President Obama is not a citizen because he can't produce a birth certificate," then decides to cover all bases with, "The birth certificate President Obama has showed people is falsified."
My concerns about #2 are, I think, why I'm picky about internal contradictions in a presentation. If you're trying to convince me of something, I want all your arguments to line up and make sense. Otherwise, I just think you're trying to sell me something.
What did you see today?
I am currently reading Acres of Diamonds, a speech given by Russell Conwell, the founder of Temple University. I'm reading it in book form, and on page 41, Conwell tells a story about John Jacob Astor's success coming in small part because when he owned a hat shop, he only sold bonnets copied from ones he had seen contented ladies wearing. Then, on page 47, Conwell talks about how important great inventors are in a capitalist society.
Commentary
Acres of Diamonds is a polemic extolling the virtues of making money, almost to the exclusion of all else, so I'm probably predisposed to pick it apart. It was funny though, I read the Astor story and said to myself, "So Conwell is saying innovation is bad." Then I got to page 47 and thought, "Unless it's a successful innovation that makes money. Then he's saying it's good!"
I think this odd juxtaposition struck me harder because earlier this week I was in a two-day workshop where I thought the consultant contradicted herself repeatedly. In fact, there were enough instances that I thought I could develop a pretty good drinking game based on them, but you know how punchy you get at these things.
Anyway, these two sets of circumstances got me thinking about why people contradict themselves and why we as listeners sometimes don't notice. I came up with two reasons:
1) Someone is presenting so much information that contradictions kind of creep in unnoticed. I think this is applicable not only to Conwell, who seemed to want to say everything good about capitalism at once and the consultant, who was trying to fit a great deal of material about library planning into two days, but also the world in general these days, where so much information is available that it's hard to take a moment and realize that "A" cannot exist in the same universe as "B." I think we should pay attention if this is happening, and you can count on The Daily Show to point out as many of them as they can get their hands on, but morally the phenomenon is pretty benign.
2) Someone is so intent on making a point that they will use whatever arguments are at hand, even if they make no logical sense. This is not so benign and nearly impossible to combat. It is the argument that starts with, "We know President Obama is not a citizen because he can't produce a birth certificate," then decides to cover all bases with, "The birth certificate President Obama has showed people is falsified."
My concerns about #2 are, I think, why I'm picky about internal contradictions in a presentation. If you're trying to convince me of something, I want all your arguments to line up and make sense. Otherwise, I just think you're trying to sell me something.
What did you see today?
7/31/2010
I saw people protesting
Context
I had a dream this morning where I was participating in some kind of multi-day animal-related activity. I couldn't tell you what because it was a dream, but when I looked outside the fence of the facility we were meeting in, I saw some people holding picket signs saying things along the lines of "Animals are not servants!" "Free the beasts!", etc. I walked up to the fence so I could get a closer look, and two dogs belonging to one of the protesters came up to me, so I started petting them and talking to them. Later, when I came out to have the barbecue dinner that was scheduled for that night, I saw that the protesters had dispersed and I was glad.
Commentary
I used to have a difficult time describing my position on animal issues, but I think I now have a phrase that makes the appropriate distinctions. I am an animal welfare activist, not an animal rights activist. To summarize, this means that I think human beings ought to be good stewards of the animals in our care, particularly domesticated ones, and that I think the people in PETA are nutcases. Refining my position further, I'll say that animal rights activists get upset about things that I think are positive, like training dogs to do service work. In fact, I think that may have been what was going on in my dream, but I can't say for sure.
I have been known to engage in formal protests, but as I grow older I find myself doing it less and less. There was a pivotal event in my life about twenty years ago that helped me see demonstrations differently. I was living in Oakland at the time, and there was some kind of political dispute going on over People's Park in Berkeley that had grown violent. As is pretty normal for me, I was on the "left" side of the dispute. Twenty years serving about the same purpose as an unconscious state, I don't remember at all the reason for the conflict.
Anyway, one day I decided I needed to go down to the Park and get involved in what was going on. I probably had a plan for what to do, and it probably involved confronting law enforcement, but when I got to downtown Berkeley, I found myself just walking around and watching what was going on. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this "seeing" thing has been going on with me for a long time. And, as I described it to my husband later, all I could see were people. No bad guys, no good guys, just people.
So I came home and thought twice about participating in protests after that. I'm not saying that being in a demonstration requires demonizing the opposition. I'm saying that hanging out with a large, or a small-but-committed, group of people that agrees with you makes it more likely you will think it's irrational to disagree with you. And that's an opinion I never want to hold.
I believe the people in my dream were surprised I was petting their dogs. They had a vision of who I was because I was participating in this event, and the vision included "hates animals." I'd like to think that they stopped their protest because they saw that the truth wasn't so black and white. Perhaps it's arrogant to think that my actions could change people's minds so quickly, but it's my dream; I can say what I want!
I'm moved by this because I've been having some other dreams lately where I get angry when someone violates a closely-held belief of mine, and my expressions of anger never accomplish any good end. This latest dip into my subconscious let me see the other side: when I emphasize relationships over principles (I could've just ignored the protesters and gone about my business), good things happen.
This is what occurred to me when I woke from my dream: God doesn't love principles; God loves people. The Bible doesn't actually say that anywhere, but I can't draw any other reasonable conclusions from the contradictory threads of Jesus' life and ministry. Specifically, I think that's what he meant when He said the Sabbath was made for people, not the other way around. Principles are not bad, any more that sincerely-intended political protests are. You just can't let them get in the way of the important stuff.
What did you see today?
I had a dream this morning where I was participating in some kind of multi-day animal-related activity. I couldn't tell you what because it was a dream, but when I looked outside the fence of the facility we were meeting in, I saw some people holding picket signs saying things along the lines of "Animals are not servants!" "Free the beasts!", etc. I walked up to the fence so I could get a closer look, and two dogs belonging to one of the protesters came up to me, so I started petting them and talking to them. Later, when I came out to have the barbecue dinner that was scheduled for that night, I saw that the protesters had dispersed and I was glad.
Commentary
I used to have a difficult time describing my position on animal issues, but I think I now have a phrase that makes the appropriate distinctions. I am an animal welfare activist, not an animal rights activist. To summarize, this means that I think human beings ought to be good stewards of the animals in our care, particularly domesticated ones, and that I think the people in PETA are nutcases. Refining my position further, I'll say that animal rights activists get upset about things that I think are positive, like training dogs to do service work. In fact, I think that may have been what was going on in my dream, but I can't say for sure.
I have been known to engage in formal protests, but as I grow older I find myself doing it less and less. There was a pivotal event in my life about twenty years ago that helped me see demonstrations differently. I was living in Oakland at the time, and there was some kind of political dispute going on over People's Park in Berkeley that had grown violent. As is pretty normal for me, I was on the "left" side of the dispute. Twenty years serving about the same purpose as an unconscious state, I don't remember at all the reason for the conflict.
Anyway, one day I decided I needed to go down to the Park and get involved in what was going on. I probably had a plan for what to do, and it probably involved confronting law enforcement, but when I got to downtown Berkeley, I found myself just walking around and watching what was going on. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this "seeing" thing has been going on with me for a long time. And, as I described it to my husband later, all I could see were people. No bad guys, no good guys, just people.
So I came home and thought twice about participating in protests after that. I'm not saying that being in a demonstration requires demonizing the opposition. I'm saying that hanging out with a large, or a small-but-committed, group of people that agrees with you makes it more likely you will think it's irrational to disagree with you. And that's an opinion I never want to hold.
I believe the people in my dream were surprised I was petting their dogs. They had a vision of who I was because I was participating in this event, and the vision included "hates animals." I'd like to think that they stopped their protest because they saw that the truth wasn't so black and white. Perhaps it's arrogant to think that my actions could change people's minds so quickly, but it's my dream; I can say what I want!
I'm moved by this because I've been having some other dreams lately where I get angry when someone violates a closely-held belief of mine, and my expressions of anger never accomplish any good end. This latest dip into my subconscious let me see the other side: when I emphasize relationships over principles (I could've just ignored the protesters and gone about my business), good things happen.
This is what occurred to me when I woke from my dream: God doesn't love principles; God loves people. The Bible doesn't actually say that anywhere, but I can't draw any other reasonable conclusions from the contradictory threads of Jesus' life and ministry. Specifically, I think that's what he meant when He said the Sabbath was made for people, not the other way around. Principles are not bad, any more that sincerely-intended political protests are. You just can't let them get in the way of the important stuff.
What did you see today?
7/27/2010
I saw myself get angry
Context
My husband and I are traveling back from a vacation in Richmond on the Amtrak Crescent. A little before 4:00, the hostess from the dining car came around to inform us that dinner would be served at 4:30. We thought this was silly for a couple of reasons, including the fact that the train was running late. We tried to express this to her, but she appeared to be "on script" and not interested in what we were saying. I got angry, and after she left I told my husband I didn't want dinner because I didn't want to have to deal with her. She apparently heard me, because she came back to our bedroom to try to explain the situation again, but I blew her off. After some discussion with my husband, I went to the dining car (at 4:30!) and apologized to her for complaining behind her back.
Commentary
Really? The context wasn't painful enough, you want commentary? OK, here are some random thoughts:
I really do love train travel, but this particular trip has had its hiccups.
My husband is my conscience a great deal of the time.
I've had several obvious "message from God" dreams lately and at first I interpreted them as pertaining to hospitality. The more I consider them, however, the more I realize they're about anger and they come with a bright neon message: anger throws up a barrier between me and my basic beliefs about what's important, like hospitality and building relationships through good communication.
What did you see today?
My husband and I are traveling back from a vacation in Richmond on the Amtrak Crescent. A little before 4:00, the hostess from the dining car came around to inform us that dinner would be served at 4:30. We thought this was silly for a couple of reasons, including the fact that the train was running late. We tried to express this to her, but she appeared to be "on script" and not interested in what we were saying. I got angry, and after she left I told my husband I didn't want dinner because I didn't want to have to deal with her. She apparently heard me, because she came back to our bedroom to try to explain the situation again, but I blew her off. After some discussion with my husband, I went to the dining car (at 4:30!) and apologized to her for complaining behind her back.
Commentary
Really? The context wasn't painful enough, you want commentary? OK, here are some random thoughts:
I really do love train travel, but this particular trip has had its hiccups.
My husband is my conscience a great deal of the time.
I've had several obvious "message from God" dreams lately and at first I interpreted them as pertaining to hospitality. The more I consider them, however, the more I realize they're about anger and they come with a bright neon message: anger throws up a barrier between me and my basic beliefs about what's important, like hospitality and building relationships through good communication.
What did you see today?
7/08/2010
I saw an article about incentives
Context
Duplicate issues of magazines the library receives are kept in the staff lounge. The April 19th edition of Time, had a cover story about the results of and reactions to a series of economics experiments giving cash incentives to students in public schools. Read the article here, if you like.
What I read of the article discussed the scientific rigor behind the experiments, conducted by Roland Fryer, Jr. of Harvard, and their varied results. It also pointed that many people really disliked the idea that they were being conducted at all. Educators in particular wanted students to develop a love of learning, not constantly have a hand out for tangible rewards. On the other hand, the writer for Time said, "most adults work primarily for money, and in a curious way, we seem to be holding kids to a higher standard than we hold ourselves." I stopped reading at that point.
Commentary
Just to kick things off, I'd like to give kudos to Time for their online archive. It is remarkably easy to find and use, and that's something librarians care deeply about.
I didn't stop reading the article because I was disgusted with the subject matter; I found it fascinating. Too fascinating, because as soon as I got to the "most adults work primarily for money" line I had to stop and think about incentives in my own life for a good ten to fifteen minutes.
Money almost never works as an incentive to me. I have taken jobs in the past just to pay the bills, but you could have given me million-dollar bonuses and I still wouldn't have done them particularly well or with any enthusiasm. In fact, my dad gave me cash for good grades a couple of times when I was in high school, and although I didn't turn them down, my internal attitude was pretty much "Yeah, whatever."
The good opinion of others works, but only from people I respect, and there aren't a whole lot of those on the planet. With the distance of years I've developed some real sympathy for people whom I didn't care for who were trying to get me to do stuff. Even when they went the punishment route, as some educators did, they found that in my perverse way I usually considered that a badge of honor.
I remember love of learning being an incentive for me, especially when I first entered school and, ironically enough, when I went to grad school in my mid-thirties. But I also remember that throughout my educational career I put special effort into any assignment I considered interesting or worthy of my talents. And I'd be willing to bet that's true of most people. The problem is, it's a moving target; what's interesting to me is deadly dull to others (Shall I talk to you about controlled vocabularies again?). And of course, my talents are different from yours.
I still believe it's a goal worth pursuing. In fact, in human resources and training materials I often read about the need to personalize rewards to the individual worker's values and goals, rather than taking a one-type-fits-all approach. So if we're going to adopt a business-type model for education, I'd rather we go with that one. And if money is what works for some students (sigh!), then why not start handing it out, if only to help them see that their individual opinions have worth? As Dr. Fryer says, let's try "treat[ing] kids not as inanimate objects but as human beings who behave in interesting ways."
What did you see today?
Duplicate issues of magazines the library receives are kept in the staff lounge. The April 19th edition of Time, had a cover story about the results of and reactions to a series of economics experiments giving cash incentives to students in public schools. Read the article here, if you like.
What I read of the article discussed the scientific rigor behind the experiments, conducted by Roland Fryer, Jr. of Harvard, and their varied results. It also pointed that many people really disliked the idea that they were being conducted at all. Educators in particular wanted students to develop a love of learning, not constantly have a hand out for tangible rewards. On the other hand, the writer for Time said, "most adults work primarily for money, and in a curious way, we seem to be holding kids to a higher standard than we hold ourselves." I stopped reading at that point.
Commentary
Just to kick things off, I'd like to give kudos to Time for their online archive. It is remarkably easy to find and use, and that's something librarians care deeply about.
I didn't stop reading the article because I was disgusted with the subject matter; I found it fascinating. Too fascinating, because as soon as I got to the "most adults work primarily for money" line I had to stop and think about incentives in my own life for a good ten to fifteen minutes.
Money almost never works as an incentive to me. I have taken jobs in the past just to pay the bills, but you could have given me million-dollar bonuses and I still wouldn't have done them particularly well or with any enthusiasm. In fact, my dad gave me cash for good grades a couple of times when I was in high school, and although I didn't turn them down, my internal attitude was pretty much "Yeah, whatever."
The good opinion of others works, but only from people I respect, and there aren't a whole lot of those on the planet. With the distance of years I've developed some real sympathy for people whom I didn't care for who were trying to get me to do stuff. Even when they went the punishment route, as some educators did, they found that in my perverse way I usually considered that a badge of honor.
I remember love of learning being an incentive for me, especially when I first entered school and, ironically enough, when I went to grad school in my mid-thirties. But I also remember that throughout my educational career I put special effort into any assignment I considered interesting or worthy of my talents. And I'd be willing to bet that's true of most people. The problem is, it's a moving target; what's interesting to me is deadly dull to others (Shall I talk to you about controlled vocabularies again?). And of course, my talents are different from yours.
I still believe it's a goal worth pursuing. In fact, in human resources and training materials I often read about the need to personalize rewards to the individual worker's values and goals, rather than taking a one-type-fits-all approach. So if we're going to adopt a business-type model for education, I'd rather we go with that one. And if money is what works for some students (sigh!), then why not start handing it out, if only to help them see that their individual opinions have worth? As Dr. Fryer says, let's try "treat[ing] kids not as inanimate objects but as human beings who behave in interesting ways."
What did you see today?
7/02/2010
I saw a comment on social standing
Context
It is often the case that when I want to understand a problem better, I find a book on the topic. So now I'm in the middle of reading a book by Hilde Bruch called Conversations with Anorexics. This is a quote I read today: "Paula then went into much detail about the pain of growing up in a small town where she felt not recognized as belonging to a leading family."
Commentary
I grew up in one of the biggest cities in the world. And in a very small town. Let me explain: my family moved to Mexico City when I was eight years old, but because we're Americans most of our social interactions took place within the sizable-for-what-it-is, but still small, English-speaking community.
So my view of my place in the community during those years was different from what it would have been if I'd grown up in the country of my birth where nearly everyone spoke the same language I did. Here's an example: I went to the American School, an expensive, private, college-prep school, which my father's employer paid for as an incentive to accept a foreign assignment. While there, I socialized with the children of diplomats, high-level Mexican government officials (the college prep applied to both U.S. and Mexican institutions), missionaries, and others. These are the kind of people I would have never encountered at the public school a mile away from our family's home in Michigan.
The thing is, at the American School we didn't arrange ourselves according to the social strata our parents belonged to. This may be typical of kids thrown together everywhere, but we used kid standards (athletic prowess, physical beauty, what passes for sophistication when you're twelve, etc.) for status, not adult ones. I went out on a date with the son of the Mexican Secretary of Tourism one time. He was as low on the socially awkward totem pole as I was. On the other hand, there were girls in my social circle who used to belittle my ineptness all the time. It was only with time that I discovered two important realities:
1) My dad was their dad's boss.
2) I was going on to college. They were going back to rural Michigan to get married and have babies.
I am very grateful to my parents for the opportunity to grow up this way. I still feel a little out of place in my native culture (Why oh why don't you people kiss each other to say "Hello"?), but I think it gave me a good perspective on the malleability of social structure and an ability to be comfortable in my own skin under almost any circumstances. And I speak Spanish reasonably well.
¿ Que ha visto usted hoy?
It is often the case that when I want to understand a problem better, I find a book on the topic. So now I'm in the middle of reading a book by Hilde Bruch called Conversations with Anorexics. This is a quote I read today: "Paula then went into much detail about the pain of growing up in a small town where she felt not recognized as belonging to a leading family."
Commentary
I grew up in one of the biggest cities in the world. And in a very small town. Let me explain: my family moved to Mexico City when I was eight years old, but because we're Americans most of our social interactions took place within the sizable-for-what-it-is, but still small, English-speaking community.
So my view of my place in the community during those years was different from what it would have been if I'd grown up in the country of my birth where nearly everyone spoke the same language I did. Here's an example: I went to the American School, an expensive, private, college-prep school, which my father's employer paid for as an incentive to accept a foreign assignment. While there, I socialized with the children of diplomats, high-level Mexican government officials (the college prep applied to both U.S. and Mexican institutions), missionaries, and others. These are the kind of people I would have never encountered at the public school a mile away from our family's home in Michigan.
The thing is, at the American School we didn't arrange ourselves according to the social strata our parents belonged to. This may be typical of kids thrown together everywhere, but we used kid standards (athletic prowess, physical beauty, what passes for sophistication when you're twelve, etc.) for status, not adult ones. I went out on a date with the son of the Mexican Secretary of Tourism one time. He was as low on the socially awkward totem pole as I was. On the other hand, there were girls in my social circle who used to belittle my ineptness all the time. It was only with time that I discovered two important realities:
1) My dad was their dad's boss.
2) I was going on to college. They were going back to rural Michigan to get married and have babies.
I am very grateful to my parents for the opportunity to grow up this way. I still feel a little out of place in my native culture (Why oh why don't you people kiss each other to say "Hello"?), but I think it gave me a good perspective on the malleability of social structure and an ability to be comfortable in my own skin under almost any circumstances. And I speak Spanish reasonably well.
¿ Que ha visto usted hoy?
6/30/2010
I saw an underweight coworker
Context
One of my coworkers at the library was overweight when he first got his job. He then went on the paleolithic diet. He got down to a healthy weight and kept on going, so now he is too thin for his large frame. My relationship with this young man is cordial but not close.
Commentary
Actually, "cordial but not close" is pretty much what I go for in all my relationships. I mean, I'm married and I have family and a couple of close friends, but in general I don't bond tightly with other human beings.
And therein lies a problem. I'm concerned about my coworker. He may be ill, but given his personality (he strikes me as someone who sees things very much in black and white) I'm concerned he may be anorexic. But I'm nowhere near close enough to him to ask him about it.
Closeness is not the only issue. Current etiquette dictates that we don't make casual comments on appearance in the workplace, as doing so risks a charge of unprofessionalism or outright harassment. And in society at large we generally don't talk about a person's weight at all. Remember, the only time you should ask a woman if she's pregnant is when you see a baby emerging from her womb. I guess the reason behind this is that we are expected to be hypersensitive about our weight, and if my coworker really does have an eating disorder the last thing I want to do is promote hypersensitivity.
But is the only alternative to say nothing at all? To, in fact, have my eyes open and not open my mouth? Or do I have to take the long way around and get closer to him and then express concern? This loving thy neighbor stuff is hard!
What did you see today?
One of my coworkers at the library was overweight when he first got his job. He then went on the paleolithic diet. He got down to a healthy weight and kept on going, so now he is too thin for his large frame. My relationship with this young man is cordial but not close.
Commentary
Actually, "cordial but not close" is pretty much what I go for in all my relationships. I mean, I'm married and I have family and a couple of close friends, but in general I don't bond tightly with other human beings.
And therein lies a problem. I'm concerned about my coworker. He may be ill, but given his personality (he strikes me as someone who sees things very much in black and white) I'm concerned he may be anorexic. But I'm nowhere near close enough to him to ask him about it.
Closeness is not the only issue. Current etiquette dictates that we don't make casual comments on appearance in the workplace, as doing so risks a charge of unprofessionalism or outright harassment. And in society at large we generally don't talk about a person's weight at all. Remember, the only time you should ask a woman if she's pregnant is when you see a baby emerging from her womb. I guess the reason behind this is that we are expected to be hypersensitive about our weight, and if my coworker really does have an eating disorder the last thing I want to do is promote hypersensitivity.
But is the only alternative to say nothing at all? To, in fact, have my eyes open and not open my mouth? Or do I have to take the long way around and get closer to him and then express concern? This loving thy neighbor stuff is hard!
What did you see today?
6/25/2010
I saw a review of a book
Context
One of the tasks I perform at my library is looking over the new book lists in our catalog to make sure the items are displaying properly. Our catalog contains reviews of some items and sometimes I read those, even though it's not a necessary component of the task.
This is a quote I read today from the Library Journal review of Lynette Eason's Too Close to Home: "Readers who enjoy romantic suspense authors Suzanne Brockmann and Sandra Brown but who prefer their thrills with a little more conscience and a lot less sex will be thrilled with Eason's new series opener." Eason is classified as a Christian suspense author.
Commentary
I have been neglecting my calling. And as often happens with backsliding, I didn't realize it for a long time. I haven't posted to this blog for two and a half months, not because I haven't been seeing anything (I always see stuff), but because I didn't think I needed to say anything about it.
Here's an example: I was at a funeral visitation last weekend, waiting outside while a rosary was being said for the deceased. Some of the other people outside were making fun of the rosary. Yes, you read that correctly. At a funeral, there were people making fun of the rosary being said for the departed. Anyway, I didn't know anyone else who was around, so I didn't say anything to them about this appalling lack of respect. I figured it wouldn't do any good.
And this morning when I read the review excerpted above I had some thoughts about it, but I didn't plan to blog because I didn't think my opinions would be of interest to anyone. And then I remembered. The call was to open my eyes and open my mouth, not to be interesting or even effective. The words are my responsibility; the response is not. Luckily, repentance is always an option, so onward!
Although I am a Christian, I rarely read what is called Christian literature. I'm not using the conditional term above because I don't think the literature is Christian. It's just that, as with so many other parts of our culture today, it seems certain people have co-opted the term so that nothing outside their realm is considered Christian. In order to satisfy that segment of the population, a book has to uphold conservative values, particularly those pertaining to personal morality. It also has to say at its core that although there may be some ups and downs to life, correct religious belief and practice will eventually give you all the answers you need.
Which brings me to a Christian author I do like: C.S. Lewis. I read his works, you should pardon the expression, religiously. But apparently he's not quite Christian enough. A library colleague I respect in Arkansas, Lesley Knieriem, made this statement about him in response to a request for Christian authors: "Lewis's space trilogy [is] well known, but . . . once again would not be acceptable to the ECPA." The ECPA is the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. I had to look that up.
I can see what Lesley means. The final book in the series cited has the Jesus stand-in (named Ransom, because Lewis is not a subtle man) utter this line about one of his companions: "He is our sceptic; a very important office." Somehow I can't see a Gilbert Morris protagonist making that kind of statement. Even less can I picture a contemporary piece of Christian children's literature containing a scene like the one near the end of the Chronicles of Narnia series, where a person who has been serving Satan (or Baal, depending on your interpretation) all his life is told that there is a place for him in heaven because his actions were virtuous, even though they were pointed at the wrong God!
In the end, I think they problem is one of intent. It seems to be that the current crop of Christian authors seek to comfort their readers, while Lewis was always in the business of challenging his, even the youngest of them. And when it comes to my religious health, I don't need a lot of massage. I need resistance training.
What did you see today?
One of the tasks I perform at my library is looking over the new book lists in our catalog to make sure the items are displaying properly. Our catalog contains reviews of some items and sometimes I read those, even though it's not a necessary component of the task.
This is a quote I read today from the Library Journal review of Lynette Eason's Too Close to Home: "Readers who enjoy romantic suspense authors Suzanne Brockmann and Sandra Brown but who prefer their thrills with a little more conscience and a lot less sex will be thrilled with Eason's new series opener." Eason is classified as a Christian suspense author.
Commentary
I have been neglecting my calling. And as often happens with backsliding, I didn't realize it for a long time. I haven't posted to this blog for two and a half months, not because I haven't been seeing anything (I always see stuff), but because I didn't think I needed to say anything about it.
Here's an example: I was at a funeral visitation last weekend, waiting outside while a rosary was being said for the deceased. Some of the other people outside were making fun of the rosary. Yes, you read that correctly. At a funeral, there were people making fun of the rosary being said for the departed. Anyway, I didn't know anyone else who was around, so I didn't say anything to them about this appalling lack of respect. I figured it wouldn't do any good.
And this morning when I read the review excerpted above I had some thoughts about it, but I didn't plan to blog because I didn't think my opinions would be of interest to anyone. And then I remembered. The call was to open my eyes and open my mouth, not to be interesting or even effective. The words are my responsibility; the response is not. Luckily, repentance is always an option, so onward!
Although I am a Christian, I rarely read what is called Christian literature. I'm not using the conditional term above because I don't think the literature is Christian. It's just that, as with so many other parts of our culture today, it seems certain people have co-opted the term so that nothing outside their realm is considered Christian. In order to satisfy that segment of the population, a book has to uphold conservative values, particularly those pertaining to personal morality. It also has to say at its core that although there may be some ups and downs to life, correct religious belief and practice will eventually give you all the answers you need.
Which brings me to a Christian author I do like: C.S. Lewis. I read his works, you should pardon the expression, religiously. But apparently he's not quite Christian enough. A library colleague I respect in Arkansas, Lesley Knieriem, made this statement about him in response to a request for Christian authors: "Lewis's space trilogy [is] well known, but . . . once again would not be acceptable to the ECPA." The ECPA is the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. I had to look that up.
I can see what Lesley means. The final book in the series cited has the Jesus stand-in (named Ransom, because Lewis is not a subtle man) utter this line about one of his companions: "He is our sceptic; a very important office." Somehow I can't see a Gilbert Morris protagonist making that kind of statement. Even less can I picture a contemporary piece of Christian children's literature containing a scene like the one near the end of the Chronicles of Narnia series, where a person who has been serving Satan (or Baal, depending on your interpretation) all his life is told that there is a place for him in heaven because his actions were virtuous, even though they were pointed at the wrong God!
In the end, I think they problem is one of intent. It seems to be that the current crop of Christian authors seek to comfort their readers, while Lewis was always in the business of challenging his, even the youngest of them. And when it comes to my religious health, I don't need a lot of massage. I need resistance training.
What did you see today?
4/06/2010
I heard about a medical appointment
Context
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.
Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:
1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!
Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.
Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.
Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.
Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!
Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.
What did you hear today?
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.
Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:
1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!
Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.
Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.
Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.
Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!
Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.
What did you hear today?
3/19/2010
I saw a lack of capitalization
Context
I did New Staff Orientations for five new library employees today. Part of the orientation is filling out a time sheet on the computer and printing it out to be turned in to payroll. Two of the students typed their names on the paysheet in all lower-case letters.
Commentary
When I saw my students not capitalizing their names, I had three progressively softer reactions:
1) This is bad grammar.
2) This is inappropriate grammar; i.e. there are some circumstances where lower case is OK for names, like for e-mail addresses or if you're e.e. cummings, but this is not one of them.
3) This is a stylistic choice that makes no difference in this context. After all, it wasn't going to keep anybody from getting paid or anything.
I think the fact that #3 was definitely true but I still had reactions #1 and #2 says something about me. Ah well, I notice stuff; that's my job.
So since I do notice, I wonder what typing your name in lower-case says about the students in question. Specifically, is it really a stylistic choice, or does the person not know any better? Actually, that second choice could be divided in two: does the person not know names are traditionally capitalized in English grammar (Yeesh! I hope not!) or do they not know how to capitalize on a computer (still sad, but not as sad)? From an educational standpoint, the answers to these questions are important. Ignorance requires a remedy, but stylistic choices can be the start of a student-teacher dialog on different modes of expression.
I'm reminded of when I taught in a minority-dominated high school in the late 1980s. We used to agonize over whether some of what we were teaching was tantamount to expecting students to deny their native cultures. Over time, I came to believe that my job was to offer the kids the tools to make an informed choice: if they chose to adopt the values and habits of the dominant culture, their lives might be enriched in some ways and impoverished in others. Either way, they go in with their eyes open. Which is always a good idea.
What did you see today?
I did New Staff Orientations for five new library employees today. Part of the orientation is filling out a time sheet on the computer and printing it out to be turned in to payroll. Two of the students typed their names on the paysheet in all lower-case letters.
Commentary
When I saw my students not capitalizing their names, I had three progressively softer reactions:
1) This is bad grammar.
2) This is inappropriate grammar; i.e. there are some circumstances where lower case is OK for names, like for e-mail addresses or if you're e.e. cummings, but this is not one of them.
3) This is a stylistic choice that makes no difference in this context. After all, it wasn't going to keep anybody from getting paid or anything.
I think the fact that #3 was definitely true but I still had reactions #1 and #2 says something about me. Ah well, I notice stuff; that's my job.
So since I do notice, I wonder what typing your name in lower-case says about the students in question. Specifically, is it really a stylistic choice, or does the person not know any better? Actually, that second choice could be divided in two: does the person not know names are traditionally capitalized in English grammar (Yeesh! I hope not!) or do they not know how to capitalize on a computer (still sad, but not as sad)? From an educational standpoint, the answers to these questions are important. Ignorance requires a remedy, but stylistic choices can be the start of a student-teacher dialog on different modes of expression.
I'm reminded of when I taught in a minority-dominated high school in the late 1980s. We used to agonize over whether some of what we were teaching was tantamount to expecting students to deny their native cultures. Over time, I came to believe that my job was to offer the kids the tools to make an informed choice: if they chose to adopt the values and habits of the dominant culture, their lives might be enriched in some ways and impoverished in others. Either way, they go in with their eyes open. Which is always a good idea.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)