I'm on book three of the Song of Ice and Fire series. It's good stuff, even if you aren't a big fantasy fan.

I cleaned out a Borders that was going out of business, so Carthy McCormic (Blood Meridian and others), Dan Ariely (whatever his newest book is) and Chris Hedges (Death of the Liberal Class) are in the queue.

Other notealble read this year were Naomi Klein's brilliant 'Shock Doctrine' and Dan Ariely's fun 'Predictably Irrational'. 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull' was a quick but cool vintage read too.

On the TV front, I also finally got around to watching Eastbound and Down, Tim and Eric's Awesome Show (behind the times, yes, I know) and the Walking Dead. All cool shows.

Got to sleep now, driving home from MT tomorrow morning with isserkitter.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That sounds like a book I want to read - and yeah - totally validates what I was trying to say above.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@berticus turned me on to a great book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational, which is about behavioral economics. Ariely's research comes to the conclusion that we behave differently based on whether we view a situation as a business or social interaction. Business transactions are governed by greed and self interest; social interactions are governed by empathy and compassion. It's not a political book, per se, but it does seem to explain a lot about the psychology behind the political divide.
In one of the more simple experiments in the book, he sets out a table of chocolates at MIT with a sign that says free chocolates. Because money is not involved, the students operate under social norms and only take one or two chocolates, leaving plenty of free chocolates for other students. When the experiment is repeated with a 1 cent price tag attached to the chocolate, the students operate under market norms and are much more greedy.
It's a fun and interesting read that pretty much makes the same point you make above.... but with science. Worth a look.
(on a side note, I finally have internet at the place I'm staying! YAY! I've gone without for over a month. I've also started playing Minecraft which is strangely addictive for a game about hitting pixelated blocks with an Axe.)

@berticus turned me on to a great book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational, which is about behavioral economics. Ariely's research comes to the conclusion that we behave differently based on whether we view a situation as a business or social interaction. Business transactions are governed by greed and self interest; social interactions are governed by empathy and compassion. It's not a political book, per se, but it does seem to explain a lot about the psychology behind the political divide.

In one of the more simple experiments in the book, he sets out a table of chocolates at MIT with a sign that says free chocolates. Because money is not involved, the students operate under social norms and only take one or two chocolates, leaving plenty of free chocolates for other students. When the experiment is repeated with a 1 cent price tag attached to the chocolate, the students operate under market norms and are much more greedy.

It's a fun and interesting read that pretty much makes the same point you make above.... but with science. Worth a look.

(on a side note, I finally have internet at the place I'm staying! YAY! I've gone without for over a month. I've also started playing Minecraft which is strangely addictive for a game about hitting pixelated blocks with an Axe.)

@RedSky

There is an old legend about a Sensei who provides instruction to his students for free. As the months go by, the students start to feel guilty for not compensating their instructor, so they offer to pay him. When approached, the Sensei replies, "If I were to charge you, you couldn't afford me".

Teaching is a calling. No one goes into teaching to become rich, they do it because they believe it provides a valuable social service. When you throw 'merit pay' into the equation, it changes this dynamic. It cheapens the interaction. Whatever pittance that would be offered would be insulting compared to the amount of time and effort teachers spend on and off campus.

If you are doing it right, there should be a sense among schools, teachers and students that they are all in it together as a team, all striving to be the best they can be and cheering their peers to do the same. There would be nothing worse for this kind of camaraderie than to throw a roll of quarters on the ground and ask them to fight over it. In the private sector, where value is measured in dollars, fighting over loose change is part of the game, but to introduce this kind of game theory into what should be a supportive and nurturing environment couldn't be more wrong headed. When Coke and Pepsi fight, the consumer wins; when students, teachers, schools and districts start duking it out, we all lose (and corporations win says issy astutely). You can't solve social problems with market solutions.

Competition is not part of the soul of education. Sure, you find competitive elements in sports, arts competitions, science team, etc., but the point of education is not to 'win'. The point of education is to learn, and more specifically, to 'learn how to learn'. Tests are about winning and losing and do nothing to promote critical thinking or a greater understanding of the world we live in. Sure, you need tests to gauge progress, but when you make testing the center piece of the educational experience, you fail in the bigger picture.

Education should be about critical thinking, about asking questions and about preparing students to be intelligent and thoughtful adults, who will hopefully one day make this world a better place. To fill their heads (or their teacher's heads) with the motivating factors of greed, selfishness and fear is no way to make this world a better place.

berticus turned me on to a great book that is helping me to understand this debate better (among other things). It's not a book about education or politics per se. It's about the psychology that governs our decisions and interactions. The book is called 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely. You'd like it.

I've done a lot of teaching in many different contexts; one-on-one instruction, coaching small groups and directing big ones. When you do a good job, it is its own rewards, when you do a bad job, it is its own punishment. No amount of money in the world can give you the feeling of changing someones life for the better, and no amount of salary in the world can spare you the shame of failing a student.

It frustrates me that people want to force education into the shallow mold of markets. We've been at it for a decade now and our educational system is still in shambles. Heck, market solutions have fucked up nearly every aspect of our country, from jobs to banks to mortgage fraud to war to poverty. Enough is enough.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Dan Ariely, predictably irrational, stealing, coke, cash' to 'Dan Ariely, predictably irrational, stealing, coke, cash, the context of character' - edited by kronosposeidon