Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« All Our Yesterdays At 'Today' | Main | So How Did Eric Holder Vote, Anyway? »

April 09, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2016303e2918c970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Don't Put This Off...:

Comments

rse

Tom-the curriculum you are referring to is generally called soft skills or life skills. It is designed to give examples of deficits in order to make much of what goes on in the classroom SEL. Either social-interactive emphasis among students or psychological-emotional.

It's our old friend outcomes based education back to get at the value system and attitudes and dispositions and overall worldview of the next generation.

It is tied into what is really going on with these new Common Core national standards. Also with the constant onslaught of bullying stories. Genuine problems get magnified so the remedy can be implemented. Remedy though has unexplained aspects. Why it is called the hidden curriculum by its advocates.

NK

TomM-- I have an alternative explanation than this psych-mumbo jumbo. The impulsive, obese didn't watch the original Star Trek series. That's right, star trek. In episode #30 Amok Time, after he believes he killed Kirk in combat caused by his purported bride, Spock tells Ston, the bride's Vulcan paramour, that " You will find that wanting is more pleasurable than having. It is not logical, but often true." I was 9 years old when I first saw that, never forgot that advice.

Extraneus

Good one, NK. Spock was an influence in my life, too.

MarkO

Life is like baseball.

Nevertheless, not since 1966 have both the Sox and Yanks started the season 0-3.

narciso

With all due respect to pastor Warren, we are not in recovery, jobs are scarce, food and fuel are becoming exorbitantly expensive, yes
that is a factor but seriously,

AliceH

The recklessness of instant gratification used to be the exclusive domain of the very very rich, who had the means or the powerful relatives, to offset the most immediate repercussions.

The democratization of "I deserve it, gimme!" has more to do with the removal of all direct social and legal consequences to each bad spending decision than it does with any purported decrease in ability to manage money.

Chubby

((The recklessness of instant gratification used to be the exclusive domain of the very very rich, who had the means or the powerful relatives, to offset the most immediate repercussions.))

that implies almost a rationality: I'll do this because my relatives will take care of it. Rationality and the impulse of instant gratification never work together. Rationality is tossed out the window. And yes, poor people could have indulged in it too. Wife beating, abusive fisherwifery scolding, inappropriate sexual impulses, overeating, being cruel to animals, etc. etc.

Ignatz

--Spock tells Ston, the bride's Vulcan paramour, that " You will find that wanting is more pleasurable than having. It is not logical, but often true." I was 9 years old when I first saw that, never forgot that advice.--

I always preferred the episode where Kirk tells Spock that rather than making love to Jill Ireland he belongs in the circus, right next to the dog faced boy.

AliceH

Good point, Chubby. I should have clarified that I meant sustained practice of instant gratification without undeniable consequence was once the purview of just the very rich because they were the only one's who would be protected from consequences. Rationality has nothing to do with it, if the consequences of one's indulgence are never felt by the indulger. The poor (and middle class) USED to feel the consequences either through drastic measures such as debtor's prison or less drastic but no less immediate, such as not having money for food or shoes for their kids.

Today, however, the government sees to it that no matter how poorly one manages with whatever money one earns, the consequences will never include the complete lack of food, shelter, or healthcare. Not saying this is bad or wrong. Just saying there would be more people willing to put off some immediate "want to have" decision if they were not already fully covered by others for the "must have" life expenses.

But what do I know. I used to stretch out my Halloween candy to last me until Christmas, which I'd then ration to last me until Easter, which I'd then ration to last me until ... as long as I could (no candy being in the offing until the next Halloween....) I did get a small allowance, but I was expected to buy my own school supplies and pay for my own field trips, so I didn't have the option of buying candy until I got a job -- at which point, no WAY was I going to waste it on candy.

NK

Ig-- that was one of the hippy-dippy rec drug use Star Trek episodes; those and the Kirk sex episodes went right over my 9 yo head.

AliceH

Related: my Dad used to bemoan the degradation of personal responsibility and a strong work ethic, and frequently noted it was already going downhill when Webster's dictionary gave the first definition of discipline as 'punishment' and simultaneously declared the meaning of 'training' to be obsolete.

clarice feldman

Personally, I can resist going to doughnut shops but when people bring boxes of doughnuts into an office and leave them near the coffee machine, I find them irresistible. There oughta be a law.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame