3x3 Grid

Attempt to connect all nine dots using only 4 straight lines, without taking your pencil (finger) off the paper (screen).  Have fun!

Another thought on Real-World Preparation

As a companion to my Real World Preparation post:

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

                                                           -Herbert Spencer

Imposed Regulations

It always seems strange to me how very contradictory our economic demands are compared to our public demands.  We in the U.S. hold on dearly to our capitalism, maintaining the “American Dream” – if you work hard enough, you’ll be successful.  If you’re not successful, well, that’s your fault.  Our tycoons and kings of the free markets built their empires through smart business moves and the sweat of their brows, fueling the fires of competition to bring the best and least expensive product to the masses.  Capitalism, after all, is spurred on by competition, hence the Mergers and Monopolies commission, which regulates markets to ensure fair competition.

But wait a minute?  How can we be both competitive and “fair” at the same time?  Isn't that the point of capitalism – “I built it, it’s mine, and the government needs to butt out!” – to build and maximize and adapt to survive?  Our economic system and deeply held cultural beliefs stem from Social Darwinism: only the strong survive.  However, we don’t live in a completely free market economy to allow private businesses the wiggle room to manage their own affairs.  We've added government regulations, taxes and tariffs, and publicly funded programs to the mix, hindering the private markets’ ability to self-regulate.

Damn right, some of you may say.  Let Big Brother get out of the picture and leave us in peace.  Let business take care of business and the government to take care of…something else.

Now, think, what would happen if the government truly played no role in public life, allowed for a fully capitalistic system to emerge, free from influence and free from any of those “social(ist)” programs interfering with the balance of power.  Programs such as welfare, roads, bridges, the correctional system, the military, police and fire protection, minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, labor laws, public education (including the state university systems and tech schools), FEMA, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and tax breaks for businesses, dependents  home-owners, people in school, IRA contributions, work-travel, and charitable donations should all be out the window…

So what do we really want?

"Real-World" Preparation

Here's a little something I found interesting:

The child is constantly confronted with the nagging question: "What are you going to be?" Courageous would be the youngster who could look the adult squarely in the face and say, "I'm not going to BE anything; I already am." We adults would be shocked by such an insolent remark, for we have forgotten, if indeed we ever knew, that a child is an active, participating and contributing member of society from birth. Childhood isn't a time when he is molded into a human who will then live life; he is a human who is living life. No child will miss the zest and joy of living unless these are denied him by adults who have convinced themselves that childhood is a period of preparation.(attributed to Professor T. Ripaldi)

Man, this guy makes a great point.  I had a professor in undergrad who espoused the same idea.  He would open each semester explaining that college wasn't so much "preparation for the real world", but a part of it.  After all, handing in a assignment late or failing a test did, in fact, result in actual consequences.  However, is that really the overarching idea we're establishing in youth?

Today, thousands of kids are being signed up for youth soccer, presumably to be learning the values of teamwork, perseverance, and winning and losing graciously.  Unfortunately, and I hate to break it to you, but only mountains speak for themselves - just because a kid plays a sport doesn't automatically mean they'll learn anything.  Second bummer: how on earth can they learn about how hard work pays off, or that persevering to the end and leaving it all on the field - win or lose - is better than having never even tried in the first place?  How can we expect anyone to pick up on these things when every single player on every team wins a medal just for showing up?  Isn't the new message "As long as you're here, you win!"?

Did you know that there are states, counties, and districts with "No-Zero" grading policies?  In a nutshell, students will never be given a zero on an assignment, an incomplete in some places, but never a failing grade. Students have the opportunity try it over and over and over until either they finally understand the material, their teacher realizes there are other students packed into the classroom and just stamps a "C" on their, or money runs out before that 16-year-old ever finishes fourth grade.

So not only are we teaching kids that all they have to do is show up, but also that we're here to protect them, to gently guide and shelter them until that fateful day when they have to step out into the "real world".

"Don't worry", we inadvertently tell our youth,"you're a winner even though you didn't actually accomplish anything.  All you have to do is be yourself and the world will fall into your hands. We'll solve all your problems and take care of you."

So we keep our kids safe and sound, hovering around, ready to swoop down on any potential challenge that may accost our delicate and frail children.  We tiptoe around frail egos, keeping them safe from failure and making sure they never have to face personal shortcoming.  As it turns out, after a bit more research, we already have a word for this process.

It's called domestication.

And it's no known for making animals smarter.

For more fun reading, I think this article sums it up nicely: Why Teenagers Are Growing Up So Slowly Today

The Golden Rule and Fair Vs. Equal

So about a month ago, I was facilitating an off-site program at an elementary school, and in their gym, the teacher had hung a poster about fair vs. equal, explaining that although treatment may not always be "equal", students would always be treated "fairly", according to each students' individual needs.  (To avoid copyright infringement, I won't include a picture, but the poster can be found here).  This poster has led me down a roller coaster of reactions, as at first sight I disagreed with the idea.  To me, it didn't seem to be the best route of establishing a sense of fairness through subjective treatment - I mean, isn't the entire concept of "fair" without being "equal" open almost entirely to opinion?  And is that really the underlying message that we want to provide to developing minds, that people are inherently different, and so justice includes treating them differently.  Because I'm pretty sure that's the very idea many movements through the 1960's fought against...

However, if the teacher is an especially good at his job, designing creative and influential lesson plans, should he be paid the same as an inept teacher at the same school?  Equal would be paying them the same.  Fair would be to recognize the first teacher's abilities, wouldn't it?  Now, an aside would be to wonder which the "real world" most often abides by...  (Don't worry, I'm sure there will be a post on that as well before too much longer!)

So I'm still torn.  Adding to the issue is the "Golden Rule": Treat others the way you would like to treated.  A plea for equality as far as I can see.  And the premise is simple - if you personally would like to treated with respect, treat others with respect.  If you expect honesty, give honesty.  Simple, easy, straight-forward.

But let's delve a bit deeper, eh?  I really like listening to loud music while I study.  Should I therefore, in the spirit of treating others the way I would like to be treated, blare Green Day throughout the library?  Quite simply put, a sadist is just a masochist following the Golden Rule.  So perhaps equality across the board may be a bit too oversimplified.

There have been several figures who have instead offered up the "Platinum Rule" (coined by Dr. Tony Alessandra): Treat others the way they want to be treated.  As George Bernard Shaw surmised: Do not do unto others as you would that they should do onto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists, 1903).  Karl Popper, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russel have all suggested similar sentiments.

So here we have an argument for treating others fairly, though not necessarily equally, recognizing that even though something may be the right for us, it may not be the best option for others.  In a way, it's taking ego out of the equation.  Now, I also realize that many would argue that such a consideration is perhaps reading a bit too much into the semantics of the phrase, throwing out contrary examples for the sake of contrary examples, and to an extent I would agree with you (after all, the title of this blog is "Arguing With Myself" so obviously even I don't think I'm right enough to prove a point!).  I merely offer this up as an alternative suggestion.

So, should we be treated fairly, equally, or can we find common ground on which to tread between these two?  Can we find something both fair and equal?  I don't think that the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule are mutually exclusive, rather, considering both may be the best route.  After all, if we're putting more thought into how we treat others, we're thinking less about ourselves and our ends.

If that's even possible.

[edit]