If you implement policies where all the benefits of growth go the people least likely to spend them, you'll end up with a glut of savings. That is why interest rates are so low.
I'm sympathetic to the ideas in the article, but is there any, you know, actual /data/ to support that calling kids lazy and telling them their work is unacceptable is an effective way to teach? I talk to people who study this stuff and do consulting for people like the US military (who aren't particularly known for their touchy-feely approach to training), and, as far as I can tell, this doesn't work particularly well.
If all you do is call kids lazy and their work unacceptable, then no, it's probably not going to work.
The essential point is to set clear expectations for performance, and enforce them consistently. There is quite a bit of research along these lines in parenting, coaching, and business management, although I don't have links handy.
It can be hard to stick to this plan in the face of childhood emotional distress. There's a school of thought that the goal of childhood is to relentlessly build up self-esteem so that kids feel good about themselves, and are better equipped to handle hard coaching later. This gives permission to relax performance standards in favor of making kids feel good--e.g. "participation trophies" and "as long as you tried your best."
What this article (and many others recently) argues is that kids are plenty capable of dealing with performance standards, so long as they are perceived as fair and consistent. Kids who learn to persevere and improve are better equipped to continue doing that later in life.
The specific language this coach uses is just window dressing. The important thing is that she does not let her kids off the hook if they fail to meet the standard of performance.
So there's a difference between teaching and motivating. A good teacher does both, of course, and not just with younger students. I think you're thinking about the motivational aspects of criticizing the kids?
There's a ton of research on how to motivate in the teaching environment. Some basics:
There's a big difference between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic means you are doing something because someone if rewarding you for doing it/punishing you for not doing it. Intrinsic means you are doing it because you, yourself, want to do it. In a classroom, grades are extrinsic motivation, interest in the subject is intrinsic. Both motivations work while they are present. But studies show that when extrinsic motivation stops, so does learning. That is, someone may do very well in a class to get good grades, but when they are done with the class they will stop learning the subject (if all they were in it for were the grades.) In the military, boot-camp motivation works while the soldier is being yelled at, but as soon as the sergeant goes away, so does discipline. (Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan, _Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior_.) The key to getting motivation right is how the person being motivated views the reward or punishment. Or, in systems terms, you get what you measure.
This reflects on the method in the article. If the kids were learning chess to impress the teacher, they would lose motivation when they are criticised. But if the kids are learning chess because they want to win, they gain motivation when they learn ways to make that happen. Motivation is important.
Generally, it's better to be non-judgemental when offering a critique of students' work. I think she fails here a bit. But offering a critique is very important. If the critique is important, and the student wants to learn, then they focus on the content of the critique. The critique, also, has to be fair. If the critique is viewed as punishment, then the students might start attempting to please the teacher with theater. So if she called them lazy and they saw that as punishment for making moves too fast, they might engage in business-theater, making moves slower without thinking; this would allow them to avoid the punishment of being called lazy. But if she is correct in noting that they were, in fact, lazy, then they will recognize it as fair criticism and respond. (Kids are world-class judges of fairness, as all parents know.)
Also, students do much better (and are happier with) classes that demand high performance but allow them to work their way to success. (Clinchy, Blythe, "Issues of Gender in Teaching and Learning", Jrnl of Excellence in College Teaching 1 (1990):52-67.) The important thing is that the students feel some control over their ability to do better. (Also why you should never tell your kid "you are smart", this makes it sound like it's something they are, not something they do; i.e. something they have no control over.)
I think if you read any decent book on pedagogy (my favorite is "What the Best College Teachers Do", by Ken Bain) you'll see that there is a huge amount of research on how kids learn and how they are motivated to learn. That most of this research seems mainly ignored in the real world is unfortunate.
Here is the US, we're allowed to criticize the government. If you're unhappy with that, maybe you'd like to move to North Korea, China, or any of those other countries where people like you are allowed to shut down critical thinking.
I keep wondering how people can possibly defend what Snowden did. He used social engineering exploits in his job as sysadmin on a large scale, then published the resulting information. He apparently even compromised personal accounts of the people he was supposed to help.
Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be.
Maybe we should create a "politically correct NSA" that spies on everyone who might be involved in unpopular politics ? How about spying on every company and violently extracting their labour practices ? I'm sure quite a few European unions wouldn't mind doing that (and at least in .be and .nl that would be a legal grey area, illegal but not punishable).
I keep wondering how people can possibly defend the government's conduct.
>Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this
Do what? Expose evidence of government corruption? It is written in the law that this is exactly the case. There are numerous examples of the failure of the laws meant to protect us from this scenario.
> if they think the goal is just ? It seems so.
There is no justice in following unjust laws.
>I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be.
An informed electorate? Backroom-dealing politicians have to work harder to conceal their works? We should be so lucky.
> Do what? Expose evidence of government corruption? It is written in the law that this is exactly the case.
The law does not permit breaking the law to further expose corruption though. That is the role of an appointed (and trained!) inspector general. Or, if necessary, a special prosecutor.
It would be one thing to reveal evidence of wrongdoing that one happens to fall into as part of their normal duties. Going further beyond that is illegal for good reason, as otherwise those who are impersonating high-ranking officials for purposes of espionage would be literally indistinguishable from those impersonating the same officials for to "dig for dirt".
Put another way, if your logic applied Google would have not merely the right, but the obligation to constantly scour through their GMail archives, G+ private messages, and everything else they have access to, for evidence of wrongdoing. Is it your position that Google should be doing this?
>The law does not permit breaking the law to further expose corruption though. That is the role of an appointed (and trained!) inspector general. Or, if necessary, a special prosecutor.
The Inspector General is empowered to break the law? Or is that a bit of a bait-and-switch?
This is a very silly bit of circular reasoning. The State has effectively made it illegal to expose The State's own illegal conduct. You suppose we should all ignore the State's lawbreaking, because it took Snowden's lawbreaking to expose it, as if citizens are to be constrained by judicial rules of evidence?
Or, are you invoking the "not my job" excuse for abdicating one's responsibility as a citizen (to hold the State to account for its actions). We've had this argument before. I remain unmoved by your opinion.
>It would be one thing to reveal evidence of wrongdoing that one happens to fall into as part of their normal duties. Going further beyond that is illegal for good reason, as otherwise those who are impersonating high-ranking officials for purposes of espionage would be literally indistinguishable from those impersonating the same officials for to "dig for dirt".
I would have hoped that the NSA were competent to the degree that a Snowden wouldn't have been able to betray the them so thoroughly and completely. Hawks such as yourself ought to be especially furious at the level of organizational incompetence made evident by Snowden's disclosures. Even after being personally embarrassed by my government's shameful conduct in spying on everyone, I am again embarrassed by its obvious lack of competence. It apparently hopes to ensure the security of The State with thuggish threats, and nothing more. It must change or it is destined to fail.
>Put another way, if your logic applied Google would have not merely the right, but the obligation to constantly scour through their GMail archives, G+ private messages, and everything else they have access to, for evidence of wrongdoing. Is it your position that Google should be doing this?
Except that logic does not apply to Google, nor have I attempted to apply it to Google; because Google is not an agency of the State, especially not a part of the Judicial Branch, and therefore not the arbiter of the law in this country. Even if Google were an agency of the State, they still are not empowered to violate citizens' rights under the Constitution.
Yes, you are right, it would have been much better if we did not know what NSA does, and to what extent it violates our rights. NSA officials lying to congress, no big deal. A man standing up for what he believes and releasing the truth about a corrupt, lying, and out of control governmental organization. By god, that fucker needs to die!
Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be.
This is actually a significant part of why we have trial by jury (according to some; others argue that it's just silly); they can decide that the accused did commit the crime and still return not guilty.
Yeah he's in the leagues of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence who used social engineering exploits in their jobs as legislators to undermine the authority of the crown.
Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that following orders contrary to good conscience is immoral and illegal, but luckily the better part of the world agrees with me in the precedent set at Nuremberg.
Criticism of government has it's limits. Snowden is questionable because what he said was not public knowledge and had crippling negative effects towards security of the state, but say, expressing your criticism of government by blowing up a federal building...
Similarly to how China would react to someone talking about Tianamen Square which isn't public knowledge but knowledge of it would cause a massive shit storm that would undermine the security of the state.
It's not what happened, it's the idea of one man standing up to the state that strikes fear into their hearts.
I would wager that almost every educated person in China knows exactly what happened at Tiananmen Square. Certainly every chinese person I've ever really gotten to know knew all about it. The politics around it is complicated, but there is an acceptance of sorts that there's some items the government does not want dwelled upon, and that's one of them.
Don't underestimate Chinese political sophistication, especially amongst what we might call the middle class (a <10% minority in China). There is a common feeling, if not outright belief, that a strong government is necessary to hold the country together, especially during its current transition period with its massive inequalities. I am no expert but my impression is that the people who do know - the middle class educated, with internet access (firewalls are trivial to get around) understand or at least play along with the idea that from a stability point of view, some information is best not fully shared.
I see some interesting parallels between Chinese political censorship and the debate about the NSA revelations, by the way. Both are about concealing information of great public interest in the name of some alleged greater good. The only real difference is that the events in Tianenmen Square happened outdoors.
So releasing documents that prove that US Government is knowingly violating its citizens constitutional rights is equivalent in your mind to killing a lot of people with an explosive?
I think that falls under the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" rule [1].
Yes, the US has freedom of expression, and you can claim whatever you want about the government (you can even lie). But if you yell 'fire' in a theatre with 500 people and 1 small exit, or 'allahu akbar' in a TSA line, you deserve to get sued and punished for that. That is not legally considered to be freedom of expression.
Personally I don't find that very controversial. If you lie to get someone else's kid into your car, that's not freedom of expression either. Lying to private security during an emergency is not freedom of expression either. Reporting a bomb threat because you have a math quiz is not freedom of expressoin. If you commit fraud on a contract, that's not freedom of expression either, whether or not "it was a joke".
Summary - the case involved was not a principled exception to free speech, but the diametric opposite; a judge basically ruled that you can't criticize the government during wartime because it would undermine the state.
> Holmes, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, affirmed Schenck's conviction on the theory that this expression could be punished in wartime even though it merely urged "peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal" of conscription, on the theory that the government could suppress speech that might interfere with the draft.
That stupid and overused quote comes from an opinion by justice Holmes. "Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I." - Wikipedia.
Read the case before you quote it. American Supreme Court has done a lot of injustices in its time. And this is one of the more egregious once.
So what you have said is that if someone says "God is great" in a TSA line they should be sued or punished.
Does your opinion change if it is spoken in English? Or is it just Arabic? Should it be taken more seriously if a person is wearing a turban or not? Or maybe their skin color… does that matter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Interface_Manager
especially the listener:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Interface_Manager#...