Hello there fellow humans/blogger, please put this message on your blog
You
do not know me, but I know you because you are a famous blogger in
Malaysia and Singapore. If my source is still correct, you have more
than 20,000 audiences. I'm sure you would agree to the power in numbers.
20,000 is not a big number when compared to total population of
Malaysians/Singaporeans, but it sure is a number that can make an impact
big enough in networking.
I'll just be honest with you, I'm
contacting you for your networking power. Do I have anything to offer in
return for your interest? No. So you can delete this email if you do
not wish to understand why I am asking for your help when I am offering
nothing in return.
If you are still reading this line, thank you.
I hope when you have the time, you will investigate into the
information I'm about to present to you. How is this relevant to you?
Well this is relevant to every single person on Earth, because we all
live on the same planet, and our planet is under threat by our very own
monetary-based social system which is old and outdated. I'm reaching to
you because you have the potential and influence to Malaysians and
Singaporeans, which are not aware of this.
I'm a member of a
non-profit organization called The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM). Started in
late 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement exists as the communication and
"Activist Arm" of an organization called The Venus Project (TVP). The
Venus Project was started many decades ago by Social/Industrial Designer
Jacque Fresco and his life's work has been to address and overcome the
lack of sustainability existing currently across the world and work to
incorporate new methods and values before it is too late. The basic
pursuit of The Movement is to begin a transition into a new, sustainable
social design called a “Resource-Based Economy” (RBE). This term was
first coined by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and refers to an
economic structure based exclusively on strategic resource management as
the starting point for all decisions.
Jacque Fresco - Larry King Interview (1974)
Jacque Fresco - Future by Design (2006)
Basic Observations:
In
the view of The Movement, the world today has become very detached from
the physical world, with techniques of production and distribution that
have no relationship to the environment. Our use of a profit based,
“growth” driven monetary system has become one of the greatest
destroyers of the natural world, not to mention sustainable human
values. It is important to understand that the entire global economy
requires “cyclical consumption” to operate, which means that money must
constantly be circulating. Thus, new goods and services must be
constantly introduced regardless of the state of the environment and
actual human necessity. This "perpetual" approach has a fatal flaw, for
resources as we know it are simply not infinite. Resources are finite
and the Earth is essentially a closed system. The true goal of any
economy is to preserve - or "economize" - this is not occurring and
cannot occur in a monetary driven system where labor for income requires
consumer demand. We actually live in a global "anti-economy" by all
rational standards.
Also, the intents inherent within a monetary
system are counter progressive and derive a strategic edge from
scarcity. This means that depleted resources are actually a positive
thing for industry in the short term, for more money can be made off
each respective unit. This is known as the basic law of supply &
demand and hence “value” in economics. This creates a perverse
reinforcement to ignore environmental problems and the negative
consequences of scarcity, for it literally translates into profit. There
is little intrinsic motivation to "solve" any problem or to make things
that last in the current model. It is much more beneficial for jobs and
hence profit to "service" things- not resolve them.
In other
words, the system requires problems/constant consumer interest in order
to work. The more people who have cancer, the better the economy due to
expensive medical treatments. Needless to say, this generates an
inherent disregard for human well being. The monetary arrangement,
whether in the form of capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism,
free-market or the like, is utterly detached from natural resources and
thus human well-being. It is erroneously assumed that the incentive to
seek money is also the incentive to help society. Nothing could be
further from the truth. For example, every single product created by a
corporation today is immediately inferior by design, for the market
requirement to cut creation costs in favor of lowering the output
"purchase price" to maintain a competitive edge, automatically reduces
the quality of any given item by default. In other words it is
impossible to create the “strategically best”, long lasting anything in
our society and this translates into, again, outrageous amounts of
resource waste. This is entirely and provably unsustainable as a social
system and the world you are beginning to see emerge around you, with
growing starvation, poverty, unemployment; along with the growing
scarcity of water, food and arable land, is the result.
Likewise,
most occupations are not directly related to the actual necessities of
life. Rather, they are artificial concoctions in order to keep people
employed so they can acquire purchasing power to keep cyclical
consumption going. The very reality that each human being is required to
be put in a position of servitude to a corporation or client in order
to gain income to purchase the necessities of life also perpetuates
extreme, needless waste... however, this time, it is the waste of the
human mind and human life. In the modern world, advancements in science
and technology have shown that we can automate a great deal. In fact,
statistically speaking, the more we have applied mechanization to labor,
the more productive things have become. Therefore, it is not only
negligent for us to waste our lives waiting tables, working at a bus
station, fixing cars, or other repetitive, monotonous jobs, it is also
entirely irresponsible for us not to apply modern mechanization
techniques to all industries possible for, apart from strategic resource
management, this is a powerful way to achieve balance and abundance for
all the world's people, reducing crime generating imbalances.
In
other words, it is time to update society to present day knowledge,
taking the carrying capacity of the earth into account and realigning
our methods based not on the reward of monetary gain..but the goal of
social sustainability as a whole.
Even with our current,
destructive methods, the Earth is still abundant with resources. Today
our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is
irrelevant and counter-productive to the well-being of people. Today’s
society has access to highly advanced technologies and can easily
provide more than enough for a very high standard of living for all the
earth’s people. This is possible through the implementation of a
Resource-Based Economy.
A Resource-Based Economy utilizes
existing resources rather than money, and provides an equitable method
of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner for the entire
population. It is a system in which all natural, man-made, machine-made,
and synthetic resources would be available without the use of money,
credits, barter, or any other form of symbolic exchange. A
Resource-Based Economy would utilize existing resources from the land
and sea, and the means of production, such as physical equipment and
industrial plants, to enhance the lives of the total population. In an
economy based on resources, conservation and the most advanced methods
of science and technology, we could easily produce all of the
necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. To do
this, we have to overcome our current, outdated, establishment
practices. This is the purpose of The Zeitgeist Movement- to create a
global awareness to thus transition into a new, sustainable direction
for humanity as a whole.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here are 3 documentaries produced by director Peter Joseph (also founder of TZM):
Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007 - Artivist Best Feature Artivist's Spirit Award)
This
documentary is not connected to The Zeitgeist Movement because Peter
Joseph did not know The Venus Project and haven't founded The Zeitgeist
Movement. This documentary is solely Peter Joseph's personal work and
has no connection whatsoever to TZM, TVP or RBE. The history of
"Zeitgeist: The Movie" is not what many assume. The original Zeitgeist
was actually not a "film", but a performance piece, which consisted of a
vaudevillian style multi-media event using recorded music, live
instruments and video. The event was given over a 6-night period in New
York City and then, without any interest to professionally release or
produce the work, was "tossed" up on the Internet arbitrarily. The work
was never designed as a film or even a documentary in a traditional
sense - it was designed as a creative, provoking, emotionally driven
expression, full of artistic extremity and heavily stylized gestures.
However, once online, an unexpected flood of interest began to generate.
Within 6 months over 50 Million views were recorded on Google Video
counters (before they were reset for some reason). The current combined
estimates put the number of Internet views at over 100 million as of
2009. Suddenly "Zeitgeist" the event, became "Zeitgeist: The Movie".
Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008 - Artivist Best Feature Artivist's Spirit Award + Opening Movie) RECOMMENDED WATCH
Addendum
begins and ends with excerpts from a speech by Jiddu Krishnamurti. The
film is divided into four parts[, each prefaced by a quotation from some
well-known scholar. Part I denounces the United States Federal Reserve
System, argues that a nation's creation of money and debt are
necessarily intertwined and irresolvable, and claims that the monetary
system contradicts with efforts toward social progress due to the
inevitable hindrances of interest and inflation. Part II, in order to
illuminate the immorality of the profit-only motivation of corporations,
interviews John Perkins, a self-described former economic hitman, who
articulates the involvement of the United States government (through the
CIA) in the violent overthrow and installation of various dictatorships
in South and Central Americancountries, all on behalf of U.S. corporate
interests, while completely disregarding the interests of the people of
these countries. Part III introduces The Venus Project,Jacque Fresco
and Roxanne Meadows’s vision of a technocracy movement emphasizing major
scientific and engineering advances without any profit motive, natural
resource management along with improved energy efficiency, and
abandonment of the monetary system in favor of a resource-based economy.
Part IV explores how all major social problems are ultimately the
result of wide-scale ignorance concerning the concepts of emergence and
symbiosis, as detrimentally maintained by political, monetary, and
religious institutions; several means of social change are then
suggested, largely via non-violent boycotting and educating. The film
concludes in a sequence depicting actors as members of the fast-paced
modern world suddenly stopping in their everyday activities and letting
go of various symbolic items of corporate, religious, and materialistic
significance.
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011 - Released 25th
January 2011) MUST WATCH! 1.2 MILLION YOUTUBE VIEWS IN LESS THAN A WEEK!
(YOUTUBE REMOVED IT FROM 'MOST VIEWED' FOR UNKNOWN REASONS)
Zeitgeist:
Moving Forward, by director Peter Joseph, is a feature length
documentary work which will present a case for a needed transition out
of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire
world society.
This subject matter will transcend the issues of
cultural relativism and traditional ideology and move to relate the
core, empirical "life ground" attributes of human and social survival,
extrapolating those immutable natural laws into a new sustainable social
paradigm called a "Resource-Based Economy".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Due
to the radical nature of a proposal for a global social transformation,
a lot of people are confused and made ungrounded and biased assumptions
and guilt-by-associations towards TZM. We are talking about global
social change, there is a lot of information to be read and understood
instead of judging a book by its cover.
Most common misconceptions:
1. RBE is Communism/Socialism/Technocracy/etc.
In
the past, various attempts of social transformation has been tried but
eventually failed. This is due to the inherent co-relation of a country
to another in terms of resources. A Communist country cannot function
properly in a world that operates based on Capitalism. Resources must be
managed globally, for global needs.
2. Conditioned fear for 'One World Government'.
If
there really is NWO / One World Government, we are living in one. The
monetary system. Money governs everything in the current system.
Capitalism or so-called 'Free Market' made it seem 'free', when we are
not. Ever heard of 'divide and conquer'? Divided people are easier to be
conquered, hence all the countries you see in the world today. People
of the world need to unite and take care of each other. RBE does not
have 'government'. Decisions are not made by anyone or politicians based
on opinions, but decisions are arrived at, based on scientific facts in
management of resources, for the benefit of everyone and the Earth,
preserving a sustainable system for all.
3. Human nature is inherently corrupt, greedy, etc...
Countless
researches have been done on this issue, and there is an answer: while
genetics provide the propensity for our behaviors, it is our environment
that manifests the behaviors. The environment is highly responsible for
shaping human behaviors, not genes. When people come up with the Nature
vs Nurture argument, it is actually a cop-out tactic to take the easy
way out: blaming genes instead of solving problems in our environment.
Criminals are sent to prisons instead of solving the root causes that
made them behave aberrantly in the first place.
4. We do not have the level of technology required for RBE.
The
majority of people today do not realize the current level of
technology. To them 'advanced' means 'consumer electronic gadgets' that
trends in culture every other month/year. In reality, we are more
advanced than your average consumer electronics. Implementing the RBE is
only as simple as maximizing the efficiency of today's available
technology. You can get more information in the documentaries on the
reasons why efficiency is deliberately controlled and not maximized in
the monetary market system.
5. A world without money destroys motivation and incentive.
No.
As babies, we curiously explore and adventurously challenge our
environment, it only makes sense for people to grow up to become problem
solvers in areas they are interested in and motivated with the
satisfaction of solving problems. However, this natural
motivation/incentive is short-lived when kids are exposed, conditioned
and forced to obey the rules of the game: the monetary market system.
Unfortunately, a lot of people do not realize this social conditioning,
hence they think money is 'natural' when it is not. Humans have existed
long before money was invented, if humans did not have natural
motivation of solving problems, humans would have perished on Earth long
time ago.
6. TZM is a conspiracy movement.
Most people do not
realize that a lot of serious issues are downplayed and outright
twisted by governments through mainstream media and propagandas.
Guilt-by-associations are mainly used to scare people of from anything
radical in order for the establishments to maintain their status quo.
"You believe this, oh you are conspiracy theorist!" is one of the common
phrases. People in the current system are not being encouraged to think
critically, instead they are being told what to think, not how to
think. To check whether anything is a conspiracy theory or not, simply
investigate into the sources that present scientific facts. However,
most people are not willing to do this and prefer to 'stay with the
crowd', but this doesn't make them correct.
7. TZM is anti-religions.
The
movement advocates for application of scientific method for social
concern. There are 2 parts of all religions: Values and Superstitions.
Values in religions are social science, while Superstitions are what you
may call 'pseudo-science', because they have not been proven with
scientific method or have experiments that are repeatable and generate
consistent results. RBE, which is advocated by the movement truly
embraces the values in religions and use science to create a society
that encourages such values, such as caring for one another,
cooperation, respecting people and empathy. In the current system, most
of these values are only 'lip service', as the monetary market system
inherently rewards selfishness and competitiveness.
These are the most common misconceptions. For more Q&A, you may refer to The Venus Project FAQ.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Finally,
I really appreciate your patience for reading to the last sentence of
such a heavy content. If you are interested in helping to change this
world for better, please spread the word. You may forward this email to
all the people you wish to help. Changing the world is not done
overnight, we constantly live in a state of progression, or
'transition'. RBE is not Utopian, because there can never be a Utopia.
Utopia means perfect, and perfect means no problems at all. RBE is
simply solving most of the human-made problems today (crime, poverty,
social stratification, war, pollution, etc), so that humans can focus on
natural problems in future: diseases, exploration, natural disasters,
scientific discoveries and advancement in technology, etc.
In a
world where thousands of children die every single day from poverty and
preventable diseases, and 1% of the world population owns 40% of the
world's resources, one thing is clear; something is very wrong.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world" - Mahatma Gandhi
www.facebook.com/tzmmalaysia
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
www.zeitnews.org
www.thevenusproject.com
www.thevenusprojectdesign.com
Sunday 20 May 2012
im the problem, you are the problem
“We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably
vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an
abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.
As regards to the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.”
-President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my intent and will that all who read this understand what it means. Because if you are able to understand it, then you can finally move forward in understanding why things today are exactly why they are. This is very important. We must recognize our defect and rejection of that which the government has provided to us. To understand that the governments of this world, though seemingly, corrupt and out of control, is merely a reflection of the people in which it has to govern. That we are the problem. I'm the problem and you are the problem. We have refused to govern ourselves. Due to that refusal we are left with the best that the government can literally provide.
We as a dependent of the government are a disruption and a burden because we refuse to govern ourselves. They have stepped in to try to control us, to keep us from hurting ourselves and one another so that some semblance of society might still exist. It's not pretty and not what people think they want but it is what it is because that appears to be exactly what we want.
Like I said before, the government is merely (merely; meaning ONLY) a reflection of the people in which it governs. The more out of control the people who have submitted themselves to it, the more out of control the government appears to be out of control to control it. It's actually pretty simple. Cause and effect. We are the cause by the choices we make and the government, in all of it's choices, are the effect. We the
people make this so. We are the problem.
On the other hand, if we were to stop looking to the government for our every need, for currency, for trade, for everything commercial, to deliberate fairness and equality, there would be none who find themselves holding the short end of the stick. For there would be no stick that any would want to hold.
Every government of this world will be united. Know that. Their cause will be to subdue all of those who are the problem. Know that. They will rule with a "rod of iron". They will either force us to all grow up by making us understand that we indeed are the problem or they will have to simply put an end to those that will not except the responsibility for their own actions, intents and understandings.
For those of you who think that government has enslaved you, by whatever means, know that you did agree to be governed, by and through your personal acts and actions. Do not be fooled. It is you that is the problem and your unwillingness to accept that responsibility is the problem at hand.
They'll get you by your claim of ownership. Understand that they have taken steps to relieve you of ownership. Most governments accomplished this in the 1930's. By doing so, they have made it possible for you to live your life here, now, in abundance. Yet because your intent is to own that what you cannot possibly own, you have caused scarcity instead of abundance. They see you fighting for the right of ownership. Those who fight to own something that cannot be owned is merely keeping others from the benefit of that which they make claim to. That is not love. That is not community. That is not being your brothers keeper. That is not you looking out for the best interest of others. That is not being in service to others. All in all, ownership of any kind today is selfish, thoughtless and the source and cause of every single problem you can point your finger at. Bar none.
Ownership is the problem. A man's claim of ownership is a man claiming to be owned. We were sent here to be in the world, not to be of the world. To make a claim of ownership, you are being claimed by that which you claim and are therefore of the world and no longer merely in it.
"The powers that be" know this to be the truth of the matter. They understand that simple fact of ownership. You say they want claim and ownership of everything and I say that is a lie. They make no claim of ownership, the only ones making a claim of ownership are those pointing their finger at these "powers that be" and saying, "they are trying to own everything." When in fact they are merely controlling it.
Who said, "Own nothing and control everything"? That was a very wise man. That was someone who understands what destruction ownership causes. That is a man trying to show others the right way. Those who misunderstand the logic of non ownership are lost in illusions of grandeur and that is the product of the illusion of ownership.
You truly own nothing. Your claim of ownership is causing the hungry to starve, the thief to steal and the murderer to kill. You who claim ownership of anything and everything, even your own family and loved ones, you are killing them and their future, in a world of abundance that already exists.
If you claim ownership, you are the problem. If you refuse to understand that you are the cause of the problems that you see in the world today, your experience will not only be unpleasant for you but for your prodigy also. Everything you try to hold in the form of ownership, you WILL lose, including but not limited to your life.
Do read this more than once. Understand what it says. Ask for help in understanding if you don't understand. Do not let this opportunity slip away into eternity.
Those of you who wish to continue by arguing for the "right of claim and ownership" don't bother to respond. I'm not here to change your mind for you, I'm here to assist you to change your own mind, if change is what you seek. I have no time nor energy to reason with you and your intent of continued
claim of ownership. Let your will be done in that instance. Mine is "fair warning". The "powers that be" also, have given you fair warning. Do you really think I came up with all of this on my own?
A final word taken from the last line of the Declaration of Independence, do understand it… ..."with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Notice: No claim of ownership, it's ALL been pledged.
Know thy self, for your only enemy is the one within.
jimmy
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=230&id=333465&Itemid=100114#333465
As regards to the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.”
-President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my intent and will that all who read this understand what it means. Because if you are able to understand it, then you can finally move forward in understanding why things today are exactly why they are. This is very important. We must recognize our defect and rejection of that which the government has provided to us. To understand that the governments of this world, though seemingly, corrupt and out of control, is merely a reflection of the people in which it has to govern. That we are the problem. I'm the problem and you are the problem. We have refused to govern ourselves. Due to that refusal we are left with the best that the government can literally provide.
We as a dependent of the government are a disruption and a burden because we refuse to govern ourselves. They have stepped in to try to control us, to keep us from hurting ourselves and one another so that some semblance of society might still exist. It's not pretty and not what people think they want but it is what it is because that appears to be exactly what we want.
Like I said before, the government is merely (merely; meaning ONLY) a reflection of the people in which it governs. The more out of control the people who have submitted themselves to it, the more out of control the government appears to be out of control to control it. It's actually pretty simple. Cause and effect. We are the cause by the choices we make and the government, in all of it's choices, are the effect. We the
people make this so. We are the problem.
On the other hand, if we were to stop looking to the government for our every need, for currency, for trade, for everything commercial, to deliberate fairness and equality, there would be none who find themselves holding the short end of the stick. For there would be no stick that any would want to hold.
Every government of this world will be united. Know that. Their cause will be to subdue all of those who are the problem. Know that. They will rule with a "rod of iron". They will either force us to all grow up by making us understand that we indeed are the problem or they will have to simply put an end to those that will not except the responsibility for their own actions, intents and understandings.
For those of you who think that government has enslaved you, by whatever means, know that you did agree to be governed, by and through your personal acts and actions. Do not be fooled. It is you that is the problem and your unwillingness to accept that responsibility is the problem at hand.
They'll get you by your claim of ownership. Understand that they have taken steps to relieve you of ownership. Most governments accomplished this in the 1930's. By doing so, they have made it possible for you to live your life here, now, in abundance. Yet because your intent is to own that what you cannot possibly own, you have caused scarcity instead of abundance. They see you fighting for the right of ownership. Those who fight to own something that cannot be owned is merely keeping others from the benefit of that which they make claim to. That is not love. That is not community. That is not being your brothers keeper. That is not you looking out for the best interest of others. That is not being in service to others. All in all, ownership of any kind today is selfish, thoughtless and the source and cause of every single problem you can point your finger at. Bar none.
Ownership is the problem. A man's claim of ownership is a man claiming to be owned. We were sent here to be in the world, not to be of the world. To make a claim of ownership, you are being claimed by that which you claim and are therefore of the world and no longer merely in it.
"The powers that be" know this to be the truth of the matter. They understand that simple fact of ownership. You say they want claim and ownership of everything and I say that is a lie. They make no claim of ownership, the only ones making a claim of ownership are those pointing their finger at these "powers that be" and saying, "they are trying to own everything." When in fact they are merely controlling it.
Who said, "Own nothing and control everything"? That was a very wise man. That was someone who understands what destruction ownership causes. That is a man trying to show others the right way. Those who misunderstand the logic of non ownership are lost in illusions of grandeur and that is the product of the illusion of ownership.
You truly own nothing. Your claim of ownership is causing the hungry to starve, the thief to steal and the murderer to kill. You who claim ownership of anything and everything, even your own family and loved ones, you are killing them and their future, in a world of abundance that already exists.
If you claim ownership, you are the problem. If you refuse to understand that you are the cause of the problems that you see in the world today, your experience will not only be unpleasant for you but for your prodigy also. Everything you try to hold in the form of ownership, you WILL lose, including but not limited to your life.
Do read this more than once. Understand what it says. Ask for help in understanding if you don't understand. Do not let this opportunity slip away into eternity.
Those of you who wish to continue by arguing for the "right of claim and ownership" don't bother to respond. I'm not here to change your mind for you, I'm here to assist you to change your own mind, if change is what you seek. I have no time nor energy to reason with you and your intent of continued
claim of ownership. Let your will be done in that instance. Mine is "fair warning". The "powers that be" also, have given you fair warning. Do you really think I came up with all of this on my own?
A final word taken from the last line of the Declaration of Independence, do understand it… ..."with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Notice: No claim of ownership, it's ALL been pledged.
Know thy self, for your only enemy is the one within.
jimmy
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=230&id=333465&Itemid=100114#333465
The Nature Nurture Debate in 13 century France
http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000014/00/Silence.htm
Whatever Happened to Little Albert, controversial experiments
http://www.cmer.org/class/articles/albert.html
link is dead, but i managed to find the article
link is dead, but i managed to find the article
A Brief Survey of Operant Behavior, B.F. Skinner
http://bfskinner.org/BFSkinner/SurveyOperantBehavior.html
The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell
http://hamp.hampshire.edu/%7EkebF92/genetics.html
link is dead, but i think this is the article
link is dead, but i think this is the article
Science : Criminal Genes, by Jim Wilson
www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/11/criminal_genes
link is dead, but i managed to find the article
link is dead, but i managed to find the article
Nurture, Not Nature: Study Says Environment, Not Genetics, Defines Sense of Humor
http://facstaff.uww.edu/mohanp/twinhumor.html
Study: Wealthy Stockbrokers More Dangerous Than Psychopaths
Study: Wealthy Stockbrokers More Dangerous Than Psychopaths
The findings are a reminder of why now -- more than ever -- we must refuse to succumb to political apathy and laissez-faire demagoguery.
October 6, 2011, Like most people living through this jarring age of economic turbulence and political dysfunction, you can probably recall a moment in the last few months when you thought to yourself that our lawmakers and corporate leaders are all crazy. And not just run-of-the-mill crazy, a la George Costanza's parents, but the kind of crazy that makes films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" so frightening.
The good news for you is that you aren't insane for thinking this. The bad news for all of us, though, is that according to two new scientific analyses, you are more correct in your assessment than you may know.
The first revelation came from Dr. Nassir Ghaemi of Tufts University. In his recent book, "A First-Rate Madness," he went beyond merely restating the old adage that anyone crazy enough to run for public office probably shouldn't occupy that office. Instead, the book sheds light on what Ghaemi calls an "inverse law of sanity," whereby tumultuous times like these actually reward and promote political figures who are "mentally abnormal (or) even ill."
Now comes a new study from Switzerland's University of St. Gallen showing that the most successful of the global financial elite probably pose more of a menace to society than known psychopaths.
As the website Newser reported, the researchers "pitted a group of stockbrokers against a group of actual psychopaths in various computer simulations and intelligence tests and found that the money men were significantly more reckless, competitive, and manipulative." Even more striking, the researchers note that achieving overall success was less important to the stock speculators than the sadistic drive "to damage their opponents."
The findings build on similar research in the recent past. In 1996, investigators at Glasgow Caledonian University discovered connections between psychopathy and successful financial speculation, concluding that "with the right parenting, (psychopaths) can become successful stockbrokers instead of serial killers." Likewise, in 2004, researchers at the University of British Columbia reacted to similar findings and created a test to help firms detect "corporate psychopaths" within their ranks. That same year, the award winning-documentary "The Corporation" used World Health Organization metrics to show that if companies really are "people," as our Supreme Court insists, then many of them are mentally ill.
Obviously, these results reflect the not-so-surprising fact that the extreme nature of the modern political process and of today's casino economy inherently self-select for certain kinds of traits. And no doubt, wholly changing that dynamic may be impossible or undesirable -- or both.
However, the findings are a reminder of why now -- more than ever -- we must refuse to succumb to political apathy and laissez-faire demagoguery. Indeed, it’s time to redouble our commitment to strengthening checks on political and corporate power because that power is often being wielded by the most unstable among us.
So what does that mean in practice? It means that when we see a wild-eyed White House ignore the constitution and claim the despotic right to assassinate American citizens without criminal charge, we demand that Congress stop the madness -- rather than quietly acquiesce. It means that when we see a spontaneous grassroots movement physically occupy Lower Manhattan and challenge banks' deranged rapaciousness, we applaud the effort as long overdue -- rather than scoff at it as unrealistic. It means, in short, that we refuse to stay silent in the face of insanity.
And frankly, if we have scientific proof that the inmates are running the Wall Street and Washington asylums, this is the least we should do -- and we really should do a whole lot more.
reference : http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152639/study%3A_wealthy_stockbrokers_more_dangerous_than_psychopaths/?page=1
The findings are a reminder of why now -- more than ever -- we must refuse to succumb to political apathy and laissez-faire demagoguery.
October 6, 2011, Like most people living through this jarring age of economic turbulence and political dysfunction, you can probably recall a moment in the last few months when you thought to yourself that our lawmakers and corporate leaders are all crazy. And not just run-of-the-mill crazy, a la George Costanza's parents, but the kind of crazy that makes films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" so frightening.
The good news for you is that you aren't insane for thinking this. The bad news for all of us, though, is that according to two new scientific analyses, you are more correct in your assessment than you may know.
The first revelation came from Dr. Nassir Ghaemi of Tufts University. In his recent book, "A First-Rate Madness," he went beyond merely restating the old adage that anyone crazy enough to run for public office probably shouldn't occupy that office. Instead, the book sheds light on what Ghaemi calls an "inverse law of sanity," whereby tumultuous times like these actually reward and promote political figures who are "mentally abnormal (or) even ill."
Now comes a new study from Switzerland's University of St. Gallen showing that the most successful of the global financial elite probably pose more of a menace to society than known psychopaths.
As the website Newser reported, the researchers "pitted a group of stockbrokers against a group of actual psychopaths in various computer simulations and intelligence tests and found that the money men were significantly more reckless, competitive, and manipulative." Even more striking, the researchers note that achieving overall success was less important to the stock speculators than the sadistic drive "to damage their opponents."
The findings build on similar research in the recent past. In 1996, investigators at Glasgow Caledonian University discovered connections between psychopathy and successful financial speculation, concluding that "with the right parenting, (psychopaths) can become successful stockbrokers instead of serial killers." Likewise, in 2004, researchers at the University of British Columbia reacted to similar findings and created a test to help firms detect "corporate psychopaths" within their ranks. That same year, the award winning-documentary "The Corporation" used World Health Organization metrics to show that if companies really are "people," as our Supreme Court insists, then many of them are mentally ill.
Obviously, these results reflect the not-so-surprising fact that the extreme nature of the modern political process and of today's casino economy inherently self-select for certain kinds of traits. And no doubt, wholly changing that dynamic may be impossible or undesirable -- or both.
However, the findings are a reminder of why now -- more than ever -- we must refuse to succumb to political apathy and laissez-faire demagoguery. Indeed, it’s time to redouble our commitment to strengthening checks on political and corporate power because that power is often being wielded by the most unstable among us.
So what does that mean in practice? It means that when we see a wild-eyed White House ignore the constitution and claim the despotic right to assassinate American citizens without criminal charge, we demand that Congress stop the madness -- rather than quietly acquiesce. It means that when we see a spontaneous grassroots movement physically occupy Lower Manhattan and challenge banks' deranged rapaciousness, we applaud the effort as long overdue -- rather than scoff at it as unrealistic. It means, in short, that we refuse to stay silent in the face of insanity.
And frankly, if we have scientific proof that the inmates are running the Wall Street and Washington asylums, this is the least we should do -- and we really should do a whole lot more.
reference : http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152639/study%3A_wealthy_stockbrokers_more_dangerous_than_psychopaths/?page=1
The Case Against Competition - Alfie Kohn
WORKING MOTHER
September 1987
The Case Against Competition
By Alfie Kohn
When it comes to competition, we Americans typically recognize only two legitimate positions: enthusiastic support and qualified support.
The first view holds that the more we immerse our children (and ourselves) in rivalry, the better. Competition builds character and produces excellence. The second stance admits that our society has gotten carried away with the need to be Number One, that we push our kids too hard and too fast to become winners -- but insists that competition can be healthy and fun if we keep it in perspective.
I used to be in the second camp. But after investigating the topic for several years, looking at research from psychology, sociology, biology, education, and other fields, I'm now convinced that neither position is correct. Competition is bad news all right, but it's not just that we overdo it or misapply it. The trouble lies with competition itself. The best amount of competition for our children is none at all, and the very phrase "healthy competition" is actually a contradiction in terms.
That may sound extreme if not downright un-American. But some things aren't just bad because they're done to excess; some things are inherently destructive. Competition, which simply means that one person can succeed only if others fail, is one of those things. It's always unnecessary and inappropriate at school, at play, and at home.
Think for a moment about the goals you have for your children. Chances are you want them to develop healthy self-esteem, to accept themselves as basically good people. You want them to become successful, to achieve the excellence of which they're capable. You want them to have loving and supportive relationships. And you want them to enjoy themselves.
These are fine goals. But competition not only isn't necessary for reaching them -- it actually undermines them.
Competition is to self-esteem as sugar is to teeth. Most people lose in most competitive encounters, and it's obvious why that causes self-doubt. But even winning doesn't build character; it just lets a child gloat temporarily. Studies have shown that feelings of self-worth become dependent on external sources of evaluation as a result of competition: Your value is defined by what you've done. Worse -- you're a good person in proportion to the number of people you've beaten.
In a competitive culture, a child is told that it isn't enough to be good -- he must triumph over others. Success comes to be defined as victory, even though these are really two very different things. Even when the child manages to win, the whole affair, psychologically speaking, becomes a vicious circle: The more he competes, the more he needs to compete to feel good about himself.
When I made this point on a talk show on national television, my objections were waved aside by the parents of a seven-year-old tennis champion named Kyle, who appeared on the program with me. Kyle had been used to winning ever since a tennis racket was put in his hands at the age of two. But at the very end of the show, someone in the audience asked him how he felt when he lost. Kyle lowered his head and in a small voice replied, "Ashamed."
This is not to say that children shouldn't learn discipline and tenacity, that they shouldn't be encouraged to succeed or even have a nodding acquaintance with failure. But none of these requires winning and losing -- that is, having to beat other children and worry about being beaten. When classrooms and playing fields are based on cooperation rather than competition, children feel better about themselves. They work with others instead of against them, and their self-esteem doesn't depend on winning a spelling bee or a Little League game.
Children succeed in spite of competition, not because of it. Most of us were raised to believe that we do our best work when we're in a race -- that without competition we would all become fat, lazy, and mediocre. It's a belief that our society takes on faith. It's also false.
There is good evidence that productivity in the workplace suffers as a result of competition. The research is even more compelling in classroom settings. David Johnson, a professor of social psychology at the University of Minnesota, and his colleagues reviewed all the studies they could find on the subject from 1924 to 1980. Sixty-five of the studies found that children learn better when they work cooperatively as opposed to competitively, eight found the reverse, and 36 found no significant difference. The more complex the learning task, the worse children in a competitive environment fared.
Brandeis University psychologist Teresa Amabile was more interested in creativity. In a study, she asked children to make "silly collages." Some competed for prizes and some didn't. Seven artists then independently rated the kids' work. It turned out that those who were trying to win produced collages that were much less creative -- less spontaneous, complex and varied -- than the others.
One after another, researchers across the country have concluded that children do not learn better when education is transformed into a competitive struggle. Why? First, competition often makes kids anxious and that interferes with concentration. Second, competition doesn't permit them to share their talents and resources as cooperation does, so they can't learn from one another. Finally, trying to be Number One distracts them from what they're supposed to be learning. It may seem paradoxical, but when a student concentrates on the reward (an A or a gold star or a trophy), she becomes less interested in what she's doing. The result: Performance declines.
Just because forcing children to try to outdo one another is counterproductive doesn't mean they can't keep track of how they're doing. There's no problem with comparing their achievements to an objective standard (how fast they ran, how many questions they got right) or to how they did yesterday or last year. But if we value our children's intellectual development, we need to realize that turning learning into a race simply doesn't work.
Competition is a recipe for hostility. By definition, not everyone can win a contest. If one child wins, another cannot. This means that each child comes to regard others as obstacles to his or her own success. Forget fractions or home runs; this is the real lesson our children learn in a competitive environment.
Competition leads children to envy winners, to dismiss losers (there's no nastier epithet in our language than "Loser!"), and to be suspicious of just about everyone. Competition makes it difficult to regard others as potential friends or collaborators; even if you're not my rival today, you could be tomorrow.
This is not to say that competitors will always detest each other. But trying to outdo someone is not conducive to trust -- indeed, it would be irrational to trust someone who gains from your failure. At best, competition leads one to look at others through narrowed eyes; at worst, it invites outright aggression. Existing relationships are strained to the breaking point, while new friendships are often nipped in the bud.
Again, the research -- which I review in my book No Contest: The Case Against Competition -- helps to explain the destructive effect of win/lose arrangements. When children compete, they are less able to take the perspective of others -- that is, to see the world from someone else's point of view. One study demonstrated conclusively that competitive children were less empathetic than others; another study showed that competitive children were less generous.
Cooperation, on the other hand, is marvelously successful at helping children to communicate effectively, to trust in others and to accept those who are different from themselves. Competition interferes with these goals and often results in outright antisocial behavior. The choice is ours: We can blame the individual children who cheat, turn violent, or withdraw, or we can face the fact that competition itself is responsible for such ugliness.
Studies also show, incidentally, that competition among groups isn't any better than competition among individuals. Kids don't have to work against a common enemy in order to know the joys of camaraderie or to experience success. Real cooperation doesn't require triumphing over another group.
Having fun doesn't mean turning playing fields into battlefields. It's remarkable, when you stop to think about it, that the way we teach our kids to have a good time is to play highly structured games in which one individual or team must defeat another.
Consider one of the first games our children learn to play: musical chairs. Take away one chair and one child in each round until one smug winner is seated and everyone else has been excluded from play. You know that sour birthday party scene; the needle is lifted from the record and someone else is transformed into a loser, forced to sit out the rest of the game with the other unhappy kids on the side. That's how children learn to have fun in America.
Terry Orlick, a Canadian expert on games, suggests changing the goal of musical chairs so children are asked to fit on a diminishing number of seats. At the end, seven or eight giggling, happy kids are trying to squish on a single chair. Everyone has fun and there are no winners or losers.
What's true of musical chairs is true of all recreation; with a little ingenuity, we can devise games in which the obstacle is something intrinsic to the task itself rather than another person or team.
In fact, not one of the benefits attributed to sports or other competitive games actually requires competition. Children can get plenty of exercise without struggling against each other. Teamwork? Cooperative games allow everyone to work together, without creating enemies. Improving skills and setting challenges? Again, an objective standard or one's own earlier performance will do.
When Orlick taught a group of children noncompetitive games, two thirds of the boys and all of the girls preferred them to games that require opponents. If our culture's idea of a good time is competition, it may just be because we haven't tried the alternative.
How can parents raise a noncompetitive child in a competitive world? Competition is destructive to children's self-esteem, it interferes with learning, sabotages relationships, and isn't necessary to have a good time. But how do you raise a child in a culture that hasn't yet caught on to all this?
There are no easy answers here. But there is one clearly unsatisfactory answer: Make your son or daughter competitive in order to fit into the "real world." That isn't desirable for the child -- for all the reasons given here -- and it perpetuates the poison of competition in another generation.
Children can be taught about competition, prepared for the destructive forces they'll encounter, without being groomed to take part in it uncritically. They can be exposed to the case against competition just as they are taught the harms of drug abuse or reckless driving.
You will have to decide how much compromise is appropriate so your child isn't left out or ridiculed in a competitive society. But at least you can make your decision based on knowledge about competition's destructiveness. You can work with other parents and with your child's teachers and coaches to help change the structures that set children against one another. Or you may want to look into cooperative schools and summer camps, which are beginning to catch on around the country.
As for reducing rivalry and competitive attitudes in the home:
Avoid comparing a child's performance to that of a sibling, a classmate, or yourself as a child.
Don't use contests ("Who can dry the dishes fastest?") around the house. Watch your use of language ("Who's the best little girl in the whole wide world?") that reinforces competitive attitudes.
Never make your love or acceptance conditional on a child's performance. It's not enough to say, "As long as you did your best, honey" if the child learns that Mommy's attitude about her is quite different when she has triumphed over her peers.
Be aware of your power as a model. If you need to beat others, your child will learn that from you regardless of what you say. The lesson will be even stronger if you use your child to provide you with vicarious victories.
Raising healthy, happy, productive children goes hand in hand with creating a better society. The first step to achieving both is recognizing that our belief in the value of competition is built on myths. There are better ways for our children -- and for us -- to work and play and live.
http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/tcac.htm
September 1987
The Case Against Competition
By Alfie Kohn
When it comes to competition, we Americans typically recognize only two legitimate positions: enthusiastic support and qualified support.
The first view holds that the more we immerse our children (and ourselves) in rivalry, the better. Competition builds character and produces excellence. The second stance admits that our society has gotten carried away with the need to be Number One, that we push our kids too hard and too fast to become winners -- but insists that competition can be healthy and fun if we keep it in perspective.
I used to be in the second camp. But after investigating the topic for several years, looking at research from psychology, sociology, biology, education, and other fields, I'm now convinced that neither position is correct. Competition is bad news all right, but it's not just that we overdo it or misapply it. The trouble lies with competition itself. The best amount of competition for our children is none at all, and the very phrase "healthy competition" is actually a contradiction in terms.
That may sound extreme if not downright un-American. But some things aren't just bad because they're done to excess; some things are inherently destructive. Competition, which simply means that one person can succeed only if others fail, is one of those things. It's always unnecessary and inappropriate at school, at play, and at home.
Think for a moment about the goals you have for your children. Chances are you want them to develop healthy self-esteem, to accept themselves as basically good people. You want them to become successful, to achieve the excellence of which they're capable. You want them to have loving and supportive relationships. And you want them to enjoy themselves.
These are fine goals. But competition not only isn't necessary for reaching them -- it actually undermines them.
Competition is to self-esteem as sugar is to teeth. Most people lose in most competitive encounters, and it's obvious why that causes self-doubt. But even winning doesn't build character; it just lets a child gloat temporarily. Studies have shown that feelings of self-worth become dependent on external sources of evaluation as a result of competition: Your value is defined by what you've done. Worse -- you're a good person in proportion to the number of people you've beaten.
In a competitive culture, a child is told that it isn't enough to be good -- he must triumph over others. Success comes to be defined as victory, even though these are really two very different things. Even when the child manages to win, the whole affair, psychologically speaking, becomes a vicious circle: The more he competes, the more he needs to compete to feel good about himself.
When I made this point on a talk show on national television, my objections were waved aside by the parents of a seven-year-old tennis champion named Kyle, who appeared on the program with me. Kyle had been used to winning ever since a tennis racket was put in his hands at the age of two. But at the very end of the show, someone in the audience asked him how he felt when he lost. Kyle lowered his head and in a small voice replied, "Ashamed."
This is not to say that children shouldn't learn discipline and tenacity, that they shouldn't be encouraged to succeed or even have a nodding acquaintance with failure. But none of these requires winning and losing -- that is, having to beat other children and worry about being beaten. When classrooms and playing fields are based on cooperation rather than competition, children feel better about themselves. They work with others instead of against them, and their self-esteem doesn't depend on winning a spelling bee or a Little League game.
Children succeed in spite of competition, not because of it. Most of us were raised to believe that we do our best work when we're in a race -- that without competition we would all become fat, lazy, and mediocre. It's a belief that our society takes on faith. It's also false.
There is good evidence that productivity in the workplace suffers as a result of competition. The research is even more compelling in classroom settings. David Johnson, a professor of social psychology at the University of Minnesota, and his colleagues reviewed all the studies they could find on the subject from 1924 to 1980. Sixty-five of the studies found that children learn better when they work cooperatively as opposed to competitively, eight found the reverse, and 36 found no significant difference. The more complex the learning task, the worse children in a competitive environment fared.
Brandeis University psychologist Teresa Amabile was more interested in creativity. In a study, she asked children to make "silly collages." Some competed for prizes and some didn't. Seven artists then independently rated the kids' work. It turned out that those who were trying to win produced collages that were much less creative -- less spontaneous, complex and varied -- than the others.
One after another, researchers across the country have concluded that children do not learn better when education is transformed into a competitive struggle. Why? First, competition often makes kids anxious and that interferes with concentration. Second, competition doesn't permit them to share their talents and resources as cooperation does, so they can't learn from one another. Finally, trying to be Number One distracts them from what they're supposed to be learning. It may seem paradoxical, but when a student concentrates on the reward (an A or a gold star or a trophy), she becomes less interested in what she's doing. The result: Performance declines.
Just because forcing children to try to outdo one another is counterproductive doesn't mean they can't keep track of how they're doing. There's no problem with comparing their achievements to an objective standard (how fast they ran, how many questions they got right) or to how they did yesterday or last year. But if we value our children's intellectual development, we need to realize that turning learning into a race simply doesn't work.
Competition is a recipe for hostility. By definition, not everyone can win a contest. If one child wins, another cannot. This means that each child comes to regard others as obstacles to his or her own success. Forget fractions or home runs; this is the real lesson our children learn in a competitive environment.
Competition leads children to envy winners, to dismiss losers (there's no nastier epithet in our language than "Loser!"), and to be suspicious of just about everyone. Competition makes it difficult to regard others as potential friends or collaborators; even if you're not my rival today, you could be tomorrow.
This is not to say that competitors will always detest each other. But trying to outdo someone is not conducive to trust -- indeed, it would be irrational to trust someone who gains from your failure. At best, competition leads one to look at others through narrowed eyes; at worst, it invites outright aggression. Existing relationships are strained to the breaking point, while new friendships are often nipped in the bud.
Again, the research -- which I review in my book No Contest: The Case Against Competition -- helps to explain the destructive effect of win/lose arrangements. When children compete, they are less able to take the perspective of others -- that is, to see the world from someone else's point of view. One study demonstrated conclusively that competitive children were less empathetic than others; another study showed that competitive children were less generous.
Cooperation, on the other hand, is marvelously successful at helping children to communicate effectively, to trust in others and to accept those who are different from themselves. Competition interferes with these goals and often results in outright antisocial behavior. The choice is ours: We can blame the individual children who cheat, turn violent, or withdraw, or we can face the fact that competition itself is responsible for such ugliness.
Studies also show, incidentally, that competition among groups isn't any better than competition among individuals. Kids don't have to work against a common enemy in order to know the joys of camaraderie or to experience success. Real cooperation doesn't require triumphing over another group.
Having fun doesn't mean turning playing fields into battlefields. It's remarkable, when you stop to think about it, that the way we teach our kids to have a good time is to play highly structured games in which one individual or team must defeat another.
Consider one of the first games our children learn to play: musical chairs. Take away one chair and one child in each round until one smug winner is seated and everyone else has been excluded from play. You know that sour birthday party scene; the needle is lifted from the record and someone else is transformed into a loser, forced to sit out the rest of the game with the other unhappy kids on the side. That's how children learn to have fun in America.
Terry Orlick, a Canadian expert on games, suggests changing the goal of musical chairs so children are asked to fit on a diminishing number of seats. At the end, seven or eight giggling, happy kids are trying to squish on a single chair. Everyone has fun and there are no winners or losers.
What's true of musical chairs is true of all recreation; with a little ingenuity, we can devise games in which the obstacle is something intrinsic to the task itself rather than another person or team.
In fact, not one of the benefits attributed to sports or other competitive games actually requires competition. Children can get plenty of exercise without struggling against each other. Teamwork? Cooperative games allow everyone to work together, without creating enemies. Improving skills and setting challenges? Again, an objective standard or one's own earlier performance will do.
When Orlick taught a group of children noncompetitive games, two thirds of the boys and all of the girls preferred them to games that require opponents. If our culture's idea of a good time is competition, it may just be because we haven't tried the alternative.
How can parents raise a noncompetitive child in a competitive world? Competition is destructive to children's self-esteem, it interferes with learning, sabotages relationships, and isn't necessary to have a good time. But how do you raise a child in a culture that hasn't yet caught on to all this?
There are no easy answers here. But there is one clearly unsatisfactory answer: Make your son or daughter competitive in order to fit into the "real world." That isn't desirable for the child -- for all the reasons given here -- and it perpetuates the poison of competition in another generation.
Children can be taught about competition, prepared for the destructive forces they'll encounter, without being groomed to take part in it uncritically. They can be exposed to the case against competition just as they are taught the harms of drug abuse or reckless driving.
You will have to decide how much compromise is appropriate so your child isn't left out or ridiculed in a competitive society. But at least you can make your decision based on knowledge about competition's destructiveness. You can work with other parents and with your child's teachers and coaches to help change the structures that set children against one another. Or you may want to look into cooperative schools and summer camps, which are beginning to catch on around the country.
As for reducing rivalry and competitive attitudes in the home:
Avoid comparing a child's performance to that of a sibling, a classmate, or yourself as a child.
Don't use contests ("Who can dry the dishes fastest?") around the house. Watch your use of language ("Who's the best little girl in the whole wide world?") that reinforces competitive attitudes.
Never make your love or acceptance conditional on a child's performance. It's not enough to say, "As long as you did your best, honey" if the child learns that Mommy's attitude about her is quite different when she has triumphed over her peers.
Be aware of your power as a model. If you need to beat others, your child will learn that from you regardless of what you say. The lesson will be even stronger if you use your child to provide you with vicarious victories.
Raising healthy, happy, productive children goes hand in hand with creating a better society. The first step to achieving both is recognizing that our belief in the value of competition is built on myths. There are better ways for our children -- and for us -- to work and play and live.
http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/tcac.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)