Why can't we agree here to reject certain widely held beliefs and attitudes and replace them with better ones? Surely we have enough people here to transform public opinion, as our ideas gradually spread through the culture.
The technique is not to argue the point, but merely to speak as if everyone already knew the "new" attitude, and if someone disagrees, you look at him with scorn or roll your eyes and say, "Whatever," and change the subject.
One suggested attitude change:
OLD: Thin people are attractive and healthy and fat people are unhealthy and funny-looking.
NEW: A genial pudginess shows moderation and lack of self-obsession, making pudgy people seem attractive and kindly, and thin people narcissistic and uptight.
Sample transformative dialogue:
Old-fashioned person: Look at that funny fat person! Ha ha! New-attitude promoter: Whatever. Have you seen the great new styles at Casual Male Big and Tall?
[ April 03, 2005, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'm all for it. Does being tall and pudgy make me extra attractive? Or does that keep me at the 1 out of 2 stage?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Not against it, but should we promote "fattness?"
I mean that the obesity in America has greatly increased over the past few years. To the point that it is looking like the new generation will live shorter, fattier lives than their parents.
I do not promote the thin either (even tho I am).
Americans in general need to learn to enjoy the outdoors more often. Heck, even indoors in a gym would be ok.
The thing is, Americans do not exercise nearly enough. I remember as a kid I was always outside the house.....usually mowing the lawn, but I was always active. These days I do a lot of running around at work. That and I am required to maintain physical fitness and readiness.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I think it would probably be advisable to get the public's attention away from physical appearance altogether. Though I definitely agree with your overall point.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
That's why I suggested "pudginess." A middle way. The natural proportion of body fat, really. Instead of the hyperlean look that is only natural to a small percentage of the population. It's not really pudgy, except by today's standards, where the natural mean is treated as if it were a hideous deformity.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Raia, while I like the idea of moving away from physical appearance as the standard of judgment for people, human beings are such visual creatures that I don't think it will be possible.
What I'd really like to know is how the "waif" look became the standard of beauty. I know things generally go in cycles in terms of body types that are considered attractive (flappers in the 20s, for example, as compared to the hourglass that was popular in the 40s and 50s). Does it all disseminate from the world of fashion?
And can we possibly create this change, as a relatively small population, with very little ability to place the new potential standard for attractiveness in front of the eyes of the public? (Assuming, of course, that we have no hatrackers who work for fashion magazines, in which case, we're in business.)
Or am I taking this too seriously? If that's the case, then, I'm all for all of us changing the standards; that'll make my goal weight just that much closer. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think this tactic is how we all came to "know" that there were WMD in Iraq.
Being one of the cute and adorable budgy people, I agree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:thin people narcissistic and uptight.
That doesn't seem very fair to thin people.
Posted by LTC DuBois (Member # 7661) on :
Just how our current attitudes toward fat people aren't very fair.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
...which are both good reasons, as Raia suggested, to move away from physical appearance as a standard of judgment.
Why can't we be attracted to someone's throaty laugh, or mischievious giggle, or really nice smell, or warm, comforting bear-hugs?
*imagines downloadable files of attractive laughs*
*giggles mischieviously*
[ April 03, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Just how our current attitudes toward fat people aren't very fair.
So we replace one unfairness with another?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
No, we teach the population at large to disregard physical appearance as a standard of judgment!
I'm really getting behind this, now. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
How about we realize that weight distribution is a trait, much like eye color and hair color? The old concept of being "big boned" has a scientific correlate: somatotypes .
Boy, I wish google would let you filter to only get results from .edu sites. And those personality and somatotype ones really bug me.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
*hugs her tall and slightly pudgy Beloved*
It's what's inside that counts.
I spent my youth being ignored by boys and despised by other girls because I was so skinny. I heard the whispered "anorexia" on occassion. One of our best friends once admitted he thought I was a "barfer" when he first met me.
Two babies later and I'm proud to be average, though part of me still remembers being a skelletal size 3 with a certain amount of triumph. The truth is, though, being of moderate size is the more attractive place to be. I'd much rather be healthy and a bit bottom-heavy than skinny and sickly.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
quote: Boy, I wish google would let you filter to only get results from .edu sites. And those personality and somatotype ones really bug me.
Google has a feature that lets you search in peer-reviewed scientific articles: Google Scholar
I don't know if this is what you want, but it is an excellent resource. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Off-topic, but...I LOVE google scholar. It has come in handy so many times for me now in its short life.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It's a nice idea, but you're talking about a fundamental change in how people perceive the world.
Until we as a people stop using the phrase "better than," some standard will be used as being more desirable. If only so people will be able to say "I'm better than..."
If it wasn't a physical standard, then it would be who had the most cars or the most cows or the most colored, shiny pieces of rock and glass.
Is this a perverse variation on pack hierarchy? We are, at the end of the day, glorified animals.
-Trevor
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: I'd much rather be healthy and a bit bottom-heavy than skinny and sickly.
Oh, yeah, Olivia. You've got a very attractive bottom.
Back me up on this, people! [/creepy stalker] Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Pffft. I was instructed to start flicking ice cubes at Olive if she yelped one more time about "not being attractive."
I will, however, remain diplomatically silent on our hostess' charms except to say she was a delight person to meet.
-Trevor
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
But for every 10 pounds of weight I pick up an extra minute in my 5K time…….
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
eewwwww who'd want to run 5K anyway? I'd much rather jump in my car =)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not sure what you mean by pudgy.
To me, pudgy means "very slightly overweight", which to me equals "not healthy".
I heartily advocate people being the weight they are supposed to be, but I do not advocate people deliberately eating unhealthily to increase their weight. Eat well, and people will discover they end up the weight they are supposed to be. This may be the normal, or fatter or thinner, but it's natural.
Atheletes could never do it. Young men and women, whose body fat is naturally low would have all sorts of problems later in life, although no different from the reverse problem that exists now.
Humans are supposed to vary in height and in weight, just like they're supposed to in gender and in race. We're a mixed bunch. No new or old stereotype is going to fix that, only a healthy diet.
In my opinion, of course.
Actually, I think that "how to lose weight" articles in young women's magazines should be banned. I think that would be awfully effective. Of course that would cause uproar, as it's censorship. However, I think that if we can ban cigarette ads, we should be able to ban something that's equally dangerous.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I believe, and Scott may correct me if I'm wrong (yes, we've already become close enough for me to address him as Scott), that this thread was supposed to me more on the humour side of things, people.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If that's the case, it was too subtle for me! (Iiiiiiii ammmm noooot wooooorthy!) I'm also in a militant mood. So every semi-comedic suggestion will be met with militant ideas.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I never understood how my friends who are wonderfully curvy could complain about their weight. I'm thin, but that's the only thing I've got going for me. They have curves in all the right places and a perfect hourglass figure and they're complaining!?
I think it's one of those things where you always want what you can't have.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
OLD: Thin, narcissistic, and uptight people glorify their body types in Hatrack posts.
NEW: Pudgy, narcissistic, and uptight people glorify their body types in Hatrack posts.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I take exception to the notion of natural and body type.
Natural refers to our interaction with the environment.
Stand out in the rain and you'll get wet. That's natural. Moving out of the rain or building a shelter is not unnatural.
We overeat because our schedules are rushed, we make poor eating selections because McDonald's is nearby and easy and so on.
A natural consequence is packing on body weight. A natural consequence is increased risk for heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and so on.
You shouldn't exercise in order to aspire to someone else's standard of beauty or physical perfection. I don't need the Taj Mahal to keep the rain off my head.
However, wanting to better your life and reap the benefits to be gained from a physically healthy lifestyle is not unnatural.
-Trevor
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Why can't we agree here to reject certain widely held beliefs and attitudes and replace them with better ones?
Because there is no silent force of nature as powerful in its ignorance as "common sense," which doesn't usually contain much in common with sense at all.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Aesthetics are highly personalized - I've known a woman who complained about having breasts that were too large (a small c-cup, I think) and right next to her was a woman who would have killed for her breasts (she was an average a-cup).
Blac's observation about the grass being greener is very true, but I also believe people want to find something wrong with themselves and women are, for various reasons, more inclined to do so than men.
It's a fine line from being unhappy with your physical appearance to an unhealthy disorder that warps your perception of yourself. And that's even harder because its amazingly difficult to get an objective perspective from the inside.
-Trevor
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think any standard of beauty runs the risk of turning racist. I take issue with thr non-white supermodels and actresses we adore. Sure, they come in all colors now, but you'll notice that the Halle Berrys and Lucy Lius of the world still have very European features - long, oval faces and prominent cheekbones.
How is an ethnically Tongan girl supposed to feel about her wide, flat face that no amount of make up or diet is ever going to change? In the classic Mormon flik Johnny Lingo, they showed a story of an "ugly" girl who was still accepted and turned out to be an "eight-cow woman." You'll notice, though, that even though Mahana was ugly to her Polynesian peers, she was thin and had chiseled European features and to the American audience she turned out to be a total fox.
We like tall models? Mexicans are short and thick-waisted. We like slim models? Africans are curvy and big-breasted. We like stick-straight hair? Jews and Italians and Arabs and Brazilians can only look hot when they fry and over-chemically process their hair.
No matter what we change the "norm" to include, we're excluding someone because of their genes. That's where the problem is.
Not that I wouldn't mind it if pasty white, plump, hairy German genes were to come into vogue; I just don't think it would be very egalitarian either,
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:every semi-comedic suggestion will be met with militant ideas
.... and assimilated! I'm with you, comrade!
One of my favorite parts of being constantly humorous is the flip side of seeing the grim seriousness behind all types of humor.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Each race should have many standards of beauty - and the more accustomed we become to different physical types, the more we can, on a personal level, see the beauty in every physical type.
But the fashion industry is about making money, so the types they promote are likely to be the ones they think will appeal to the majority of their market segment, which is usually "rich women with more money than brains, who think what looks good on a skinny model will look good on them, but they're wrong."
As for the cycle of favored body types, it's usually about money.
When only rich people could get fat, then stout people were considered beautiful. When only poor people ever got tans, then lovely pure untanned skin like rich people had was considered attractive.
Now, when only the rich have the leisure to get a tan and only the rich can easily afford the time to keep their bodies honed to perfection, then those who wish to be "beautiful" will sacrifice in order to try to acquire the "look" of the rich. At present, that means trying to look like a convict sentenced to hard labor - dark-tanned, heavily muscled, with no body fat and very little clothing.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
The real idea is to stop to have a behaviour drive by the apparence. When i look somebody, i reject my a priori as much as possible. Apparence may be a mask. A beautiful and charming person may be a perfect horrible man (or woman).
I try to look the good side of everybody. I am convinced every body have a good side. Maybe very little, but one.
That's my opinion.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
My husband thinks I'm beautiful whatever size I am.
I wish I were healthier, so I could have more fun with my kids. But I don't really care what size my pants are.
I don't care what size your pants are, either.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
*grins at Boon*
I just wonder how you know what size you Are Supposed To Be. How do you know??
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
I don't know, and I don't care.
Like I said, I don't care what size my pants are, I just wish I were healthier. I'm working on that, but a smaller pant size is not the goal.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
That's what I mean. How do you tell what body type/size/proportions/whathaveyou is healthy for you as an individual?
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
I'll be there when I feel good. When I can run with my kids in the field without being winded, when I can bike for miles without feeling like my legs will fall off, when my face doesn't turn beet red when I climb a flight of stairs, then it will be right.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I guess I'll have to wait til there's a cure for diabetes because I can never tell the difference between being out of shape and having bad blood sugar.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I think a new assumption should be that perfectly coiffed hair is out and the just rolled out of bed look is in. Not the manicured, just from the hairdresser, just rolled out of bed look, but the real, half of your hair is pushed-up on the side and flat while the other half is reaching out for your neighbor's ear, just rolled out of bed look.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why can't we agree here to reject certain widely held beliefs and attitudes and replace them with better ones?
This hinges on the word "better." If you mean more popular, and in this case, being overweight is strikingly popular, then the answer is easy: I'm not willing to undermine the truth in the name of making fat people feel good about their shameful habits. It's another instance of rigging the game that I talked about in the "tricknology" thread.
For the most part, I look at fat people with the same disdain most people reserve for people who don't brush their teeth. It's not only a sign of bad hygeine, I worry about their priorities, which indicate their character. I don't know if you are arguing for new attitudes or new plattiudes.
You can say I'm a product of a market culture, but I think I'm firmly in the camp that people need to stop eating so much fast food, have more salads, drive less and bicycle more. Short of that, they should live with the shame. I wouldn't be averse to spending tax dollars on public education with respect to poor dietary habits.
There was a special on MSNBC last week concerning Houston, the fattest city in the US in the fattest state, and the reason why people were so fat were because they are cheap, the weather is awful so people spend more time indoors or in their cars, and they are swelled with the entitled feeling that they should be able to eat anything they want when they want to eat it.
I don't think that standards of beauty are as arbitrary as you make them out to be. There is a reason why the statue of David doesn't have a excess belly.
[ April 03, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:There is a reason why the statue of David doesn't have a belly.
Yeah. Michelangelo was so proud of himself for knowing the human musculature system that he couldn't quite grasp the concept that not all people have such well-toned muscles that you can see each one of them under their skin. Have you ever seen his paintings of females? They could break the average guy in half!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:For the most part, I look at fat people with the same disdain most people reserve for people who don't brush their teeth. It's not only a sign of bad hygeine, I worry about their priorities, which indicate their character.
Wow. Just...wow.
Remind me never to meet you in person anywhere.
[ April 03, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Irami Osei-Frimpong:
I think you just did a pretty good job of indicating your own character.
-Katarain
[ April 03, 2005, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by Satlin (Member # 1593) on :
Maybe we can genetically engineer the next generation so that their brains are worn as a second skin. Then people can judge you by your intellect, not your body!
New Generation catcalls: "Damn, look at that medula oblongata!"
[ April 03, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Satlin ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Overeating is a symptom of many kinds of debilitating situations, including depression or addiction. But just because the root cause is not always gluttony, I'm not one to call it okay. That's like excusing violent criminal behavior because the perpetrators are in the midst of impoverished circumstances.
[ April 03, 2005, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
But you look at an overweight person and assume that they have bad hygiene and bad priorities and assume that they deserve your disdain?
If I looked at you and assumed you were ill-educated because you were black, what would you call it?
It all boils down to unreasonable prejudice.
And I'm leaving this thread, because you're making me too angry to post civilly.
Grow up, and get off your high horse.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Overgeneralizing is a symptom of many kinds of debilitating situations, including ignorance and lack of education, and intolerance. But just because the root cause is not always pettiness, I'm not one to call it okay.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Morbo, that was beautiful.
-Katarain
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm a fat bigot. I'm also a murder bigot, a terrorist bigot, a drug bigot, a smoking bigot, and a suicide bigot. And I'm shamelessly biased in favor of spinach and broccoli.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Give me a break, Irami. There are plenty of people whose tendencies toward overweight -- mine, for instance -- are only partly due to choices they make. Genetics play a HUGE role.
I have friends who are super-skinny and work out many hours a week, and I have friends who are super-skinny and couch potatoes, and friends who work out many hours a week and will NEVER be skinny.
Are there health issues to being overweight? Certainly -- I'm with Boon on this, I want to get healthier so I can feel better. If it became easier to find clothes, that would be a bonus. But not the goal.
And shame is not only unwarranted but exceedingly counterproductive.
Megan and Katarain are both absolutely correct. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, all I said is that his own words reflect his character. He's making it quite clear what sort of person he is. I don't need to say a word.
-Katarain
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
quote: To me, pudgy means "very slightly overweight", which to me equals "not healthy".
I am in fantastic health. My muscle tone is great, I eat a healthy, varied diet. My doctor had nothing but praise for my healtha at my last check-up. He even tried to talk me into having another baby.
I bike 17-34 miles regularly, and pull a tagalong when I do it. My treadmill test takes forever, because my cardiovascular health is so good it takes some doing to get my heart rate elevated. I am healthy.
I am not, however, as thin as pop culture would suggest I should be. My doctor says I'm not overweight.
I will tell you this, though. I like my dark hair and pale skin, because it's me. It's natural. Friday night (after Sin City), my beloved and I went out for a bite with our friend, and we had to wait for a seat. Evidently, I was sitting next to a girl with blond stripes in her hair and an airbrush tan ( I didn't see her). When we left, My Beloved told me how glad he was that I didn't want to look like that.
I'm happy being me. My husband is happy. I'm not a covergirl, but I am NOT unhealthy, either.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Olivia, I've seen pictures. Hon, you are gorgeous. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*gets the ice cubes ready*
-Trevor
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Thanks rivka, but I'm not fishing, I'm being realistic. I just spent an afternoon with a friend of mine who insisted we get our pictures made together. *wince* I hate having my picture made.
I can see it. Fifteen pounds less, and I'd be Sandra Bullock, but Id just as soon be ME, Ya know?
Trev, hold the ice. I know I have a certain charm. I don't really GET it, but I know it's there (waiting outside for my hubby at the theater, some kid started with the eye-contact and smiling thing. The hubby showed up just in time to see some CHILD ask me what time it was ).
I've seen my mother cause grown men to push and shove for the chance to open a door for her. Her attitude was that all that was just temporary, surface, and therefore not important.
That's the attitude I want, is all. Just me, being me.
But I do understand the idea of being at odds with that stupid voice that says you aren't such and such, so you aren't good enough.
But I am healthy! *armwrestles Irami*
*loses*
But I'm healthy, anyway!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good for you, Olivia. Healthy is what I'm going for. I will never be model-thin, and I'm ok with that. But healthy -- that's a good goal.
A healthy one, if you will. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I am not, however, as thin as pop culture would suggest I should be. My doctor says I'm not overweight.
Then my comment does not apply to you, Olivetta . I'm not sure if you were agreeing or contesting what I said, but I'm fairly sure you were contesting.
If you are the weight you are supposed to be, if you are eating healthily, exercising blah de blah, then you are not "overweight".
My badly-put point was that "pudgy" to me probably means fatter than what people think of pudgy, and that generally means overweight. I wasn't sure what OSC meant by advocating pudgyness, although I assumed he did not mean what I would define as pudgy.
Thin people to me are not "normal" they are "thin". Normal is anything from "thin" up to what I understand OSC defines as "pudgy". My pudgy starts when his "pudgy" leaves off. I think.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Irami, To a certain extent, I can see what you are saying. There is a level of distaste that most people feel when they see a very overweight person. A cringing inside. In some people, this reaction might come from a fear of finding that weakness in themselves. From others, it's a purely asthetic reaction, to something they view as ugly. However, very few people ever stop to think that there may be a reason for the state that person is in, beyond sheer laziness and lack of self control. The assumption is almost always that the person got themselves into that mess, and they can get themselves out of it if they would only buck up and TRY. That is not always true. And you have no right to assume it is.
A little empathy seems to be something you could benefit from. I've seen pictures of you, and you are a thin person. Judging others based soley on your own abilities and codes lends itself to the type of blindness that hurts both yourself and others. Thus the reactions you got to your posts.
You mentioned shame twice in your original post. "I'm not willing to undermine the truth in the name of making fat people feel good about their shameful habits." "but I think I'm firmly in the camp that people need to stop eating so much fast food, have more salads, drive less and bicycle more. Short of that, they should live with the shame"
Has shame ever been a positive motivating factor in your own life? Do you really think shame will EVER be a positive motivating factor in anyones life, or even that it should be? Stop for a minute and think about what you are really saying people should do. You are saying that people who are overweight should be looked down upon, should be degraded and made to feel ashamed of themselves, just because they dont exercise as much as they need to, and they allow society and circumstance to dictate what they eat, instead of what is good for them. I'm not saying that these habits shouldnt be changed, or that they should just be accepted as normal. But you will never help anyone to become a healthier person with shame and fear of public distaste as a motivating factor.
I dont think this is how you really view the world, just from other, well thought out posts I've read from you. Maybe it is. Either way, the way you expressed how you felt made me sad, and it made me think about how many other people out there look at people like my mom and sister with revulsion and distaste. i think this, ultimatly, is what Mr. Card is trying to say we should change. The additude of shame associated with being overweight.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
well put
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
I love all the people. You are all beautiful.
An aside (sort of): the other night, I saw Regina King (actress recently in "Ray") on a talk show, and she was wearing a lovely gown that accented her rounded thighs. That's right! Generously round! Boy they were beautiful.
And so are you! That's right, I'm talking to you (imagine me pointing out of the monitor...okay, that's a little freaky, sorry about that, hope I didn't knock over your Dr. Pepper)!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: For the most part, I look at fat people with the same disdain most people reserve for people who don't brush their teeth. It's not only a sign of bad hygiene, I worry about their priorities, which indicate their character.
Well, we already know that race is an issue with you, so I am not surprised that you show poor judgment elsewhere. The funny part of it is that racism began because people don't like the different, the strange.....because others appeared different and acted different than they did.
Assuming someone lack moral fiber because they are overweight is no different that assuming someone is unintelligent because they are black.
[ April 03, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Has shame ever been a positive motivating factor in your own life? Do you really think shame will EVER be a positive motivating factor in anyones life, or even that it should be?
I believe in shame and guilt as moral motivators. I think under-utilization of shame and guilt explain many inadequacies in our society. I also believe that shame and guilt are most appropriate in the presence of the shining positive vision. I don't think letting fat people off the hook in a nation when obesity is a serious problem is the example of a shining positive vision.
_________ As an aside, I'm in incredible shape. It's uncalled for. I can stand up and do thirty five pull-ups right now, and that's after working out this morning. Aside for the year I did Capoeira and my senior year in high school, I'm in the best shape of my life. It's a matter of good eating and exercise habits. The eating came from my dad, who did not abide by his kids eating sweets. And the exercise habits are the product of Erika Dickson. I had a crush on Erika Dickson. She liked jocks, and pretty soon I got so into excelling at the sport that I forgot about Erika, and she found herself another man, and I was wedded to the track. The women come and go, but thankfully, the passion they inspire stays the same.
Nobody needs to be in the kind of shape that I'm in. But I do believe that not everyone who supports this relative body image bandwagon is as healthy as Olivetta, and I'm not one to make excuses for them.
[ April 03, 2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Shame and guilt make a positive? I don't understand.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I can see the shame and guilt thing. If an action makes me feel guilty, I rarely do it again.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
That's understandable.
edit-- that sounded sarcastic, I didn't mean it to
[ April 03, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: MyrddinFyre ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
People without a sense of shame or guilt(or their opposite, dignity or reverence) can only be motivated to refrain by external factors, like violence or prison. That's the problem with sociopaths.
I think that people can, and should be taught to eat better, as a matter of self-respect. But we have a pervasive idea in America, that people can and should be able to do whatever they want when they want to. This idea causes almost as many problems as it solves.
As an aside, we have a lot of people in Washington who believe that our enemies do not have a sense of dignity, reverence, shame, or guilt, and that's why we have to bomb them. The telling bit about that, as katarain sees, is that the Neocon solutions tell more about the quality of their character.
[ April 03, 2005, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I wish issues of weight were as simple as guilt, shame, and morals.
Alas it is NOT so.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I think that people can, and should be taught to eat better, as a matter of self-respect. But we have a pervasive idea in America, that people can and should be able to do whatever they want when they want to. This idea causes almost as many problems as it solves.
I agree with all of that, I just disagree that being overweight means that a person is not following this counsel.
Hobbes Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
You're a bigot in favor of many things and irrationally against many others. Your own character is not doing your causes any favors.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hobbes Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Not even a few favors?
[ April 03, 2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Hobbes
I'm sorry. That was pretty funny...
Posted by FriscoProofKatAlias (Member # 7691) on :
Only yourself
Posted by sexy_aaron (Member # 7312) on :
America is a fat-ass country. Saying something like "let's accept pudgy people" is great, but if we're talking about changing the world, how about we ship half of all the calories you eat to Africa.
You won't get made fun of for being a fatty, and you'll be helping some other people. Not to mention, you might get a bit healthier.
If we're supposed to think of thin people as narcissistic and uptight then we should think of fat people as lazy and greedy.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Irami, Again. I can see what you are saying. However, I think that shame and guilt need to be addressed to different things. People who are attracted to children should be ashamed of that attraction and allow that shame to modify their natural(or unnatural) tendencies. People who have hurt others should feel guilt over the pain they have inflicted and use that guilt to make sure they never do it again. And, yes, some people dont possess those feelings, so they need to have a physical deterent making sure they never act on their desires. I totally agree that shame and guilt are neccessary factors in human society.
I think, though, that so many of the problems we have as a society, come from a misapplication and perversion of those natural feelings. I come from a background where shame and guilt were the primary motivating factors to do right. Oh, and lets not forget fear. These things were used as a bludgeon to ensure obedience and compliance with the generally accepted way of things. Fear of God and fear of your peers, shame at feelings that werent OK by certain standards, and horrible guilt when one strayed from the path of righteousness. As I grew up, I rejected that world view, and recreated one for myself that included shame and guilt, just over things that I KNEW were wrong, not over what others told me was wrong.
Your likening the issues "fat" people have with those that socially deviant people have is wrong. Like Myr pointed out, you are oversimplifying something that you have no actual experiance with. Making someone feel guilty for having a food addiction is so much more likely to send them on an eating binge than it is to make them want a salad. Most overweight people eat for comfort. Feeling ashamed of yourself because you just ate that entire pie often makes you crave a roasted chicken, just for the comforting oblivion eating provides.
I have alot of experiance with this, having been a binge eater and very overweight for most of my life. The only way I broke that cycle was to accept parts of myself that were making me feel a dull, constant ache of shame, and come to terms with why I needed to stuff my face all the time. Shame had nothing to do with this, and neither did guilt. It was about accepting myself, and learning to love and respect every part of me. I try to help everyone I know to feel the same way about themselves. And I'm not going to do that by pointing out how ugly I was when I was fat, but look at me now, and dont you wish you could be as hot as me? If you just stopped eating crappy food you could be...
That said, I agree that people should be taught self respect, and healthy habits. I just totally disagree that shame and guilt have any part in that teaching process.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I exercise everyday, I eat mostly veggies, and chicken once a day for proteine, but confine myself to droolingly looking at sweets. I walk or ride the bus (which involves quite a bit of walking, our public trans is so-so), I dance.
I have terrible asthma. I have fibroid ovarian cysts. I am 60 lbs overweight. I am NOT lazy. I am NOT greedy. And I think you who are SO quick to criticize are disgusting for ASSUMING I am.
[ April 03, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: mimsies ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my own part, I freely admit that mine is the sin of sloth (not gluttony, mind you), and my weight is my shame.
On the other hand, unlike Irami, it's just about the only thing I have to be ashamed of. I would not trade with him.
[ April 03, 2005, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I was VERY skinny, waiflike until i was 22. Then I just got to be average, but was slowly putting on weight (and unable to find any means of controlling the cysts). I rode my bike everywhere, and when I wasn't riding i was running. My college schedule was pretty hectic so I was always running to get there on time. But I still put on weight SLOWLY.
Then I got pregnant!
the first 4.5 months I LOST weight, then I stableized and just stayed at a still average weight (the Dr. was getting nervous) then BLAM! I popped out everywhere. I looked like a telletubby. Even my feet grew. The actually got LONGER in addition to wider.
I never lost the weight afterward, but the cysts have gotten worse.
[ April 03, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: mimsies ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I was so skinny as a little kid you could count my ribs through my shirt.
But at the age of about 13, I suddenly started putting on weight. No change in lifestyle. Just ... a spare tire. Yeah, I ate like a horse - but I did before.
I CAN control it, to a point. Sudden drastic changes - fasting for a month, or suddenly increasing my hours of exercise per week - can lead to substantial weight loss. But then the weight creeps back on. Usually one extravagant year or so to lose the weight, then five to be back to where I was, or nearly.
But I'm a mesomorph. I know people who no matter what they eat or how much they exercise, they simply hold onto the weight. For some it's heredity - they look exactly like one of their parents - and for others it's a health issue - cysts, cushing's syndrome, etc. But for me, it really IS something I can control if I just make it the central issue of my life. My pattern is to gain weight primarily when I'm concentrating on something else.
So doing Giant and Magic Street last fall put on ten pounds, Christmas put on another five, and the Giant book tour put on five. That's twenty. A big sack of flour. I'm not so much ashamed as annoyed. Now my clothes don't fit right. I hate that. So ... I'm back to more intense exercise and, probably, my 48-hour diet, where I eat one meal every forty-eight hours.
Posted by DocCoyote (Member # 5612) on :
Back to the very original post in this thread - what if we did call people on their observations and tried to spin them in a more positive direction? That wouldn't be too difficult. I'm choosing to take the initial post fairly seriously, because it's something I see daily.
We have a lot of gossip and negativity at work, and I've found the best way to defuse this is to spin it gently toward a positive or less catty direction. Silence implies consent. If you overhear someone saying something negative about someone or something else, call it.
If we look at the people we choose as partners/mates, chances are those people don't meet anything like society's expectations of attractiveness. I still get girly when I see my husband, and I still have a crush on him after 10 years. He looks really good to me, even with spare tire and bald head.
On my goodnight note, it's good to remember there's often more than one right answer, and someone invented chocolate because vanilla wasn't enough. God invented enough body styles to suit everyone's preference.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It's OK, Scott. If anything I thought you looked a little too skinny before.
I too can control my weight if I really put the effort in. But it has to be a *lot* of effort, unfortunately. I'm pretty good about not letting too much creep back on--and getting it off when it does. It's pregnancy that kills me.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I came to read this thread hoping for jokes and maybe some serious discussion about how the socially accepted norm for people in the United States is an unhealthy bodyshape for many people to be in. Not all, but many many people. I came expecting to make a jovial post or two and feel a little bit better about the effort I was making to better myself and others and become less hateful of the way that I am shaped while simultaneously working to make the shape more to my liking.
Instead I am met with the hatefully barbed posts of Irami, who is shameless about his prejudice against people who are overweight. I was afraid, yes, afraid, when I met my first anorexic, and she told me that she felt all the time that people were looking at her and thinking that she was fat, lazy, and greedy. I was afraid because despite having problems with my own weight for many many years, I had never entertained those thoughts. To me, being overweight made me invisible and perhaps mildly scornful.
The newly introduced idea haunted me for a few weeks. Recently due to changes in sleep habits, diet, and lack of exercise, I have put on twenty-five to thirty pounds. I have begun to suffer pain in my knees because of the extra strain, not to mention shame at the surfacing of new stretch marks on my belly, and a resounding hopelessness.
I remember feeling shock when my mother told me after years of gently pushing me in the direction of weight loss that only now did it really matter that I lose weight, because before it did not endanger my health. I was shocked because to me it had been life or death. I was convinced for quite a long time, and I am not entirely unconvinced now, that there was no way for someone who looked like me to ever date.
Even after six years of Tae Kwon Do, attaining my black belt after years of strife, doubt, self-hatred, and shame, I still did not drop below two hundred pounds.
In about thirty minutes, I'm going to bed in preparation for getting up much earlier than I'm used to, in order to walk the two miles to the class I attend at another university instead of driving, one of the steps I'm taking to improve my health. But for right now, I'm sitting at my computer, not doing my homework, crying.
In my opinion, the people who have commented on Irami's posts previously are being all too nice. I want you to know, Irami, that I know well the shame you speak of, and no matter how strongly I am or was at any point ashamed to be overweight, it pales in comparison to the shame I feel for knowing someone like you. Whatever shame I feel is in compensation for the shame you obviously don't feel for being so hateful. I reject your opinion with my very being, fat and all.
My group of friends run the gamut between rail-thin due to heredity to 5'9", 300 lbs and I do not discriminate. I will not lie and say that I have not looked upon someone who is obese or morbidly obese and felt sadness and felt superior and felt relieved that I was not them. I don't deny that I regularly compare myself to those around me and feel righteous when I am the lesser of the two of us, so to speak. But I am not proud of those feelings and I work to direct them towards honest self-improvement.
You shock and disgust me, Irami, and this has nothing to do with the way you look.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
(((Abby)))
I gained forty pounds on BIRTH CONTROL for cryin' outloud. That puts me in the "overweight" category for my age and height. The South Beach diet makes me physically ill and I'm so turned-off by the "variety" of foods they offer that I'd rather not eat at all then eat those meals. Running and doing The Firm (tm) video aggravate my hip and leave me in excruciating pain a few times a week. So my only recourse (is that a word?) is walking which still hurts my hip but not nearly as much.
So i must be a pretty huge waste of human space, being all shameful and guilt-ridden as I am that the universe is conspiring against my weight-loss.
I like you, Irami, but lately you've had a serious bug up your bum.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:We like stick-straight hair? Jews and Italians and Arabs and Brazilians can only look hot when they fry and over-chemically process their hair.
Annie, I'm Jewish and I have straight hair. I also know many Italian, Arab, and Brazilian people with straight hair. I understand the point you made, but you hit a really sore spot for me. All of my ancestors were Western European (Germany, Austria, and England) and my father isn't Jewish. In every synagogue and youth group and Jewish student union I've belonged to, the vast majority of the people were typically Eastern European-looking. I've had people refuse to believe I'm Jewish and tell me that I don't look Jewish as if that were a great compliment (it didn't help that my maiden name is Gardner). Judaism may be an ethnicity as well as a religion, but it isn't a race and no one can look Jewish any more than they can look Mormon or Methodist or Hindu or Muslim.
I will never be happy with myself unless I weigh less than 115 pounds. I just can't overcome my programming - my mother was a Ford model in the '70s and there's never been a time when I couldn't count her ribs. She thinks that Calista Flockhart has the perfect body. A lot of my friends are the same way. I grew up hearing things like, "Nothing tastes as good a thin feels," "A minute on the lips, a lifetime on the hips," and "A missed meal is a good meal." I've worked hard to overcome my warped body image, but I'll never overcome it completely.
One of the hardest things about my fertility treatments has been the weight gain. I try to look at it as an exercise in humility, but it's driving me crazy. It has certainly made me sympathize with people who struggle with their weight.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Even before I gained all that weight, I was in the obese category of the BMI. But that, I think, is because I have a fairly muscular amazon's frame.
(flexes)
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You're Abby: Warrior Princess!
Aye aye aye aye aye!!
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(wails) Indeed. Rivka was wondering why my bumper sticker says "I Brake For Amazons." That is why. I was a little bit nervous to say so. (Thought she would laugh at me. That rivka is MEAN! )
edit: speeling.
[ April 04, 2005, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I think the shockwave from Ryuko's flex just hit me.
edit: I'm a moron
[ April 04, 2005, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*just read Irami's first post in this thread*
Ouch. Those are some very ugly thoughts. If I felt that way, I certainly wouldn't be proud of it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Porter: Don't you mean Ryuko's flex? Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ryuko, there's a thread on the pros and cons of BMI as a meaningful indicator of anything.
BMI is pretty overrated, all things considered.
-Trevor
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: I was shocked because to me it had been life or death. I was convinced for quite a long time, and I am not entirely unconvinced now, that there was no way for someone who looked like me to ever date.
I just realized that this makes it look like I think that a lack of dates = death.
I'm in post-cathartic post giddiness.
Trevor: Yeah, I think I remember seeing that. I've doubted its efficacy ever since I tested myself the first time. Since then I've discounted it.
[ April 04, 2005, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Ryuko, Your post made me feel so angry for you. I mean, a serious surge of rage ran through my heart and I wanted to go pound "somebodys" head in. The idea that your self-image has been negatively affected by the unfeeling ignorance of someone who doesnt know you, and obviously could never truly know you, makes me so sad. I've seen your album on foobonic, and I cant imagine where you get such a horrible idea about what you look like. I honestly think you are gorgeous(ofcourse, that could be cause we kind of look alike). Dont let the ignorant predjudice of one un-empathetic soul get you down.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I am going to let my thoughts on this rest as is. I don't find the toothpick skinny girls that attractive. I like a some weight on them. A healthy weight. If they happen to be a bit more, so what. Do they feel good about themselves? Yes, then that's great. No, then better luck next time.
I like Chris Rock's take on this. There is nothing better(sexier?) than a big black woman.
He is referencing to the fact that most big black women feel great about themselves, and could give a sh@! less about what you think. She knows she has it.
A great attitude towards one self is important.
Now, don't mind me as I turn sideways and disappear.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I'm 5'7" and always been a bit heavy, even though I was always active in softball, dance, or flagline. The summer between graduating high school and starting college I couldn't find a summer job and got depressed and ended up gaining more weight. When I did start school I'd walk everywhere and I got really excited because I dropped two pant sizes and went back to my pre-graduation size. Now I think I eat reasonably well for a college student (I never get junk food but I've been known to eat macaroni/ramen/cheap foods a few nights a week). I get frustrated because even though I walk a lot and play DDR most nights, my weight has stayed about the same.
And I never like to look at scales--it just depresses me. My mind works in terms of clothing sizes. Which might not be much healthier, but oh well.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yeah, I weighed less than I have since I stopped growing taller during the first six months of my freshman year. Then I gained the weight back and then some.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ignore the scales. Ignore the scale.
That should be everyone's mantra.
-Trevor
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I dont know if ignoring the scales is such a good idea, T. They tend to be indicitive of something odd going on. Like mutating to a reptile or something.
Posted by FriscoProofKatAlias (Member # 7691) on :
Irami has an ugly soul. No wonder he thinks a body's appearance is what matters.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
That's not entirely fair, kat. he's been unreasonably and imo, uncharacteristically unfeeling and nasty lately...but I don't think anyone who could appreciate our Mr. Card's works could truly have an ugly soul.
Just a soul in need of some fine-tuning. Posted by FriscoProofKatAlias (Member # 7691) on :
He has to know how horrible the things he is saying are - not just this thread, but all of the bigoted, hateful remarks. It may not be a total loss, but it is not beautiful or good.
Posted by just-a-min (Member # 7308) on :
It has been interesting to think about these issues. This morning as I was putting on make up and styling my hair, I was thinking how much easier it is to buy and use beauty products than to loose the weight I want to loose. I' ve lost it before and it took months and months of thinking differently about food and eating less and exercising for at least an hour a day. I'm getting closer and closer to 40 and although I love to exercise, I realize that injuries are getting to be more and more of an issue with my weight. Is it healthy to expect myself to always be able to run a 10K? Injuries have gotten in the way of running and so I adapt (I spent hours last summer on the eliptical trainer re-reading the Alvin series AND The Wheel of Time). Now I'm back to running and I don't read as much.
I have read recently about the habits, urges, and assumptions of a woman who was very overweight. I found that her internal dialogue was not that different than mine. I don't want to exercise when I hurt. I want to eat more and more and more and more ice cream. I feel horrid shame after I eat a second bowl. My exceses are smaller but I am convinced that the temptation is so similar. How can I look on her as disgusting when I battle the same feelings with various degrees of sucess?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm fat and it's all my fault. Is that so hard to say? Is it so hard to take ownership of our shortcomings?
I think Irami's comments are, in general, true but perhaps missing the signifant fact that just because someone is obese, fat, that doesn't erase their other good qualities, and that we shouldn't assume that their obesity is a character flaw--though that is probably true. But so what if it is? Unless we have some emotional stake in that person's well-being, what reasons do we have for inflicting pain and suffering on that person with thoughtless words? It's not our place to push our views on others unless we absolutely have to.
I would rather our ideals of physical beauty that we look up to involve excellence-- Olympic athletes, David--than average 'pudginess'. On the other hand, I think that we should also understand that there are many different kinds of 'beauty' and just because one person may be deficient by one standard, that doesn't mean that they aren't champions in others that may far outweigh (*ahem*) their flaws.
I like Irami and I appreciate the fact that he's honest, politely honest for the most part, about where he stands and doesn't fling platitudes, pleasantries, and one-line snide, bitchy comments around like the rest of you lazy bastiges do to sugarcoat what he really believes.
Even though I think in this instance he could have phrased what he said a little more politely, and that he left out a lot of nuance, I think we should appreciate that his comments give us far more to think and talk about, and are more honest and forthright, than a lot of what's been said in this thread.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Wow. I never meant this to be anything but light-hearted. I picked weight as an attitude I'd like to see change merely because I have a weight problem myself, and because it's something that is out of control with the worship of anorexia (even as we blame society for it).
I guess I didn't read Irami's posts carefully enough, but I didn't see anything that exceptionable about them. To make a blanket statement that there's something wrong with his soul is simply out of line - unless this is somehow a "joke" whose point I'm missing because I haven't been around Hatrack enough.
Here's a rule of thumb: If you wouldn't speak about an alcoholic or an addict that way, then don't speak about an obese person that way, either.
Of course, that may be inviting a lot of anti-addict and anti-alcoholic comments, so maybe I should just leave well enough alone.
But let's leave judgments of people's souls up to God.
[ April 04, 2005, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If it were true, Storm, perhaps.
But the fact is, I have compared notes with a lot of friends, and there are quite a few who have similar eating and exercise habits as I do -- yet weigh considerably less.
Now, that does not mean that I am absolved of my responsibility to improve my health. It is something I am working on.
But neither is it accurate -- or even helpful -- to say "I'm fat and it's all my fault."
Might be more useful for some people to say "I'm a heartless jerk and it's all my fault."
Abby, I love the fact that you see yourself as an Amazon warrior. I'm sorry if you thought I would laugh. If I would have, it would merely have been because the image fits so perfectly. There ought to be a story about you in the book I have by my bed, Turn the Other Chick. (((((Ryuko)))))
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I'm so ticked off that I NEVER get to be an Amazon warrior.
Just another doggone Amazon shopper ...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*offers Scott a breastplate*
If that one doesn't fit, we have more in the back.
Posted by Jerrod Fortner (Member # 7510) on :
Down south, Many people are naturally big, but most of us are avid outdoorsmen or women so we are in shape. I am one of the few who could be called "Fat". I am an avid sports player, especially football, and I have tried many diets, but nothing seems to work. I have learned to accept my bigness and think of it as a positive. I'm glad I met someone who loves me for who I am, not my body size, and I am sometimes happy to big big. Punks tend to shy away from messing with bigger people because they think we are dangerous. Also, most of the people down here are mainly muscle, with only a small amount of fat, but it appears to be more becuase of our size.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
High fives for Ryuko from a fellow Amazon Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I almost wrote a story for that anthology. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I just want credit for not Dobie-ing this thread. The inside of the lip is raw.
You see, personal grooming has achieved new heights of diversity and wild variety. I know, because I've gotten exposed to a lot of the, shall we say, less-sunburned areas of Madison in my line of work.
It's a different world, Old Farts, than where we come from.
[ April 04, 2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
That is SO cool.
I'm an Amazon Warrior in my dreams.
This week I realized that my calves are getting really cut, from all the biking and stuff. Trouble is, I think the muscular chick look is much worse than the soft, matronly look. *sigh*
I don't know what I weigh, but I'll bet it's more than anybody would guess. In any case, I don't find it an accurate measure of anything, except weight, natch. So if I ever go up in the space shuttle and they have to calculate how much fuel to use for me to reach excape vellocity, weigh away.
But it isn't an accurate measure of health. Even when I was so skinny they used to pass me around and try to guess my weight, no one ever got it. I think it's because I look white but I have a lot of Native American blood, and the bone density is different.
In any case, it doesn't matter.
*makes unlady-like rude gesture at scales*
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Hehe, weight is a funny thing.
In eighth grade I was underweight for my height, and fit. I have lots of muscle and big bones, however, so all the guys (they were friends so it was all in good fun) always made fun of me because I weighed 145 lbs. In eighth grade! That was a lot. (ahaha, not anymore )
edit: weigh, weighed, weight.
[ April 04, 2005, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: MyrddinFyre ]
Posted by Syrjay (Member # 7706) on :
I do not believe we can change public opinion of what is beautiful because to do that you have to be in a position or power or in a position others want to be in.
The rich decide what is beautiful because most people want to be rich and not have to deal with the daily pressures of working to support their family.
I personally do not like the overly thin look. I am much more into people who are in shape (very different). I think a person who works out and is into their personal fitness is attractive. It shows motivation, dedication, and desire. While these are only a few characteristics that make up what I look for in a person they are some of them.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
With respect, Mr. Card, has your wife read the same posts Irami made?
I'll refrain from quoting his comments verbatim, but his posting was abusive, scornful and derogatory.
I believe a number of people have taken exception to his categorizing and self-righteous, condescending arrogance on a topic that is, for many, a sensitive and sore point.
-Trevor
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I'm so sick of appearances being the measure by which people are judged! Why can't we judge them by how much they care for others, or how fun they are to hang with, or what they like to read?
I am the skinny girl in a circle of larger friends. I think my friends are beautiful, but they all seem to have issues with their bodies. They really don't realize that I find them absolutely lovely, paragons of womanhood. They have shapely bosoms, warm arms, and sweet faces. Their bodies of various sizes are good to hug, supportive of their children, and sexual to their spouses. We bellydance together for exercise, and they move so beautifully (while uncoordinated I stamp and curse because I can't get those beautiful curvy moves.)
But they are all amused because I am now pregnant, and they can watch their skinny friend get fat. I feel like a lab rat. Why should my metabolic rate, that I honestly cannot control, make me the freak?
Anyway, I hope all you Hatrackers will look in the mirror, really look. You'll see sharp, intelligent eyes, gorgeous smiles, bodies that can carry you places and do things regardless of their dimensions. You are beautiful. And the reason I can say this is because all of you choose to do beautiful things with the bodies you have. You write, play, visit friends, support the weak and grieving, garden, speak your minds, rejoice with those who rejoice, give time and money and energy to good causes, bear children, father children, care for your families; myriads of healthy and joyous pursuits. I find you beautiful, because your shapes are part of you.
As long as you feel healthy, and are able to do the things you want to do, then all is right with the world.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scott, the 48 hour diet cannot be good for you. A couple overweight people in my ward gave it a go, and lost massive amounts of weight in a short, short time. But it just doesn't seem healthy to me.
On the other hand, Kristine looked great at the Bailey's Crossroads signing, and I didn't notice your weight gain. (Though you were wearing a black half-turtleneck, which I thought was academic of you. . . and black is so slimming, you know?)
Anyway-- I applaud the discipline it must take to abstain from all but one meal every 48 hours-- but URRGH! I just don't see how it can possibly be healthy.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Perhaps if you see it as a sort of fasting. But it would indeed be hard on your body. You'd have to be super-careful to make sure you were getting adequate nutrition. And some nutrients don't stay in the body as long as others. I hope anyone who chooses to change their diets in order to lose weight will carefully examine their options and make sure they are not sacrificing essential dietary needs in the pursuit of a lower weight. Also, realize that diets to lose weight should be SHORT TERM - you don't want to lose weight indefinitely. Far better to shift into healthy eating patterns you intend to keep for the rest of your life. And healthy exercise patterns. I am no authority, but it seems if you did that, your weight would naturally shift into something that is healthy for you.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I have issues with my personal body image. I know it hasn't always been accurate in the past. When I was young, I was relatively skinny, but my doctors told me I needed to lose 30 pounds because I was over the high end of the weight range for my height. They ignored the fact that I was at a healthy weight and was extremely strong (I could pick up the front end of my car. Granted, it was a back-pocket car, but still.) I believe them. Them, and my mother who used to yell at me every day about how fat I was.
I was stupid to believe them, but believe them, I did.
Sleep disorders, hormone imbalances, a sick gallbladder, and a bunch of other health problems, and voila! I gain weight. Now, I really am fat.
Except.
Fahim and I meet online. We chat. We fall in love. We run webcams so we can see each other. He doesn't understand what I'm talking about when I say I'm fat. As far as he's concerned, it isn't true. We meet in person, we get married, we're still in love. We have a conversation about my body image. I'm fat, I say. He still looks completely perplexed. How can I possibly think that? He just doesn't understand. "You're not fat," he says, matter of factly. It's just not within the realm of possibilities with him.
I love him even more than I did already.
Am I overweight? Could I stand to lose some? Of course. But in his eyes, it doesn't matter. To him, I'm beautiful the way I am.
This is a huge gift. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Wow.. being fat is on the same par as being a murderer or a terrorist now.
Guess I better lose some weight before I suicide bomb someone on accident!
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Another thing that OSC and I agree on.
He must be punchy-silly today (my normal state of mind).
If you check foobonic, you'll see that this topic is a hot one at our place. I'm 125, but Nene' is, well, much heavier. My stress is to talk about health issues, not appearance. She is walking now, and I support her whenever I can.
Besides, my tastes run toward the... er... abundant side. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't think weight is that big of a deal. It's unhealthy, it causes complications, it constricts lifestyles, but in sum, it's a minor issue.
It's not morally arbitrary, like race or eyesight, or being left handed. There are choices involved, and blame should be assessed and public measures should be taken. With respect to pregnancy, not even the medical profession can explain all of the changes that happen in a woman owing to pregnancy. It's one of the many reasons I would not want to be a woman.
What I do resent is what I consider a powerful segment of people conspiring to delude each other and the public without respect to the truth. This isn't merely a weight issue, it's the reason why there are seperate sentencing guidelines for crack and cocaine, it's the reason why there are idioms on the SAT, this excuse-making and convenient rejiggering bleeds from minor issues to major issues, and I wanted to stop it right here. A lot of people are fat because they are entrenched in poor lifestyle habits and routinely make poor choices. The question isn't whether these choices are poor, rather, the question is whether we are going to do anything about it, or are we going to behave like the cigerette companies and try to brand obese as cool.
[ April 04, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I like big butts and I cannot lie. . .
There's your answer, Frimpong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"being fat is on the same par as being a murderer or a terrorist now."
In fairness to Irami, I'm not sure he was saying that. I think he's saying that he feels a natural repugnance when faced with a fat person, and that he feels this repugnance is justified in most cases because it reflects at least one or two relatively minor character flaws. This is perfectly in keeping with other elements of his personality, which is unapologetically judgemental on a number of issues.
I do not mind, quite frankly, that he believes fatness to be unhealthy and would like to work to reduce it. Big whoop. He's entirely right.
What bothers me is that he considers repugnance a valuable social tool to advance this cause. He and Scott have both written about the many useful products of shame; on this, it appears they agree.
[ April 04, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
You don't want to be a woman because pregnancy will make you fat?
edit: Thought I should mention that that is not meant for Tom
[ April 04, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MyrddinFyre ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I am also concerned about this 48 hour diet. You need to look into issues such as starvation induced cortisol resistance, which will make you fatter in the long run. Sleep deprivation also overstimulates the cortisol, which leads to the insulin resistance seen in those U of Chicago studies. I think it would be a good bet that consumption of caffeinated beverages may also affect the insulin resistance.
If I were to compare being overweight to other "moral crimes" it would be homosexuality. Are you born that way or did your parents make you that way or do you like being that way? Doesn't matter, I don't have a right to hate you for it. I'm a little that way myself.
I'm in a 12 step group for my compulsive eating, the general idea being that I have used food or lack thereof to avoid dealing with emotional pain over the years, and so I have been working on facing that pain and doing other things with it and avoiding certain foods.
Before I really got the message of 12 step, I probably would have agreed with Irami. I even went through a phase where I wondered how we could have fat church leaders. But I fortunately grew past that. No one is perfect. Why measure my weakest area against someone else's strength?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Perhaps that's a public attitude that ought to change. Can we be content NOT understanding exactly everything that happens? Pregnancy is an awesome experience - and it's weird, too. Nothing to bring you to earth, faced with the limitations of your body, like pregnancy. Nothing to elevate you to the Ultimate Mysteries of Life and Death like bringing a wee one into the world. I think pregnancy is a really amazing transient state.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
How about this for a rule of thumb: Your body should be able to take you anywhere you want to go and let you do whatever you want to do.
If my body allows me to carry a 70-pound backpack into the Uintahs this summer, I'm satisfied; forget what other people think.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Woot! That would be an amazing body! Mine would have trouble with 70 pounds. Go for it!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Your body should be able to take you anywhere you want to go and let you do whatever you want to do.
I don't think so. If you want to hit seventy home runs or be Mr. Universe, I've heard it helps to take steroids. In the opposite extreme, I've been told that gymnasts routinely are pushed to do awful things to their body in the name of getting a better score.
[ April 04, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Must you be so literal, Irami? Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The human body is disposed for certain activities, and the line seperating appropriate exercise, ritual self-mutiliation/prodigality is grey. High school wrestlers cut massive amounts of weight to get a competitive advantage. I don't know how I feel about this particular practice, but I know that it requires thought. There are issues of autonomy, respect, and propriety are involved, and maybe I'd lighten up if there weren't anything at stake, but I think issues of autonomy, respect, and propriety are important, and should be spoken to with due severity.
[ April 04, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, Irami, what do you do that doesn't require a certain amount of severity? Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jenny,
quote:I'm so sick of appearances being the measure by which people are judged! Why can't we judge them by how much they care for others, or how fun they are to hang with, or what they like to read?
Wasn't it you who started an entire thread about how much you like the attention of being pretty? That was a while ago, and maybe you've changed your mind, but I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.
Tom,
My spelling is awful, and my room is a mess. Both of which could be rectified with better habits, but I'm too lazy to do anything concerning either. I'm not proud of it, but it's the case, none the less. I even organize myself around my deficiencies, choosing smaller apartments because I figure that that's less room to clean.
Mr. Card,
quote:But let's leave judgments of people's souls up to God.
Thanks for the defense, but I don't mind FriscoProofKatAlias' comment towards the ugliness of my soul. Somethings are better spoken of in the open, and I think we should try to judge appropriately the quality of other's character.
All of this leaving judging up to God is pretty talk, but if remember correctly, you are a fan of pre-emptive military action, i.e., action based directly on perceived notions on the quality of a person's character.
I'm not saying this is wrong. I am saying that its a queer sort of privilege to say that it doesn't belong to man to judge a person's soul in one instance, then change your mind the moment you feel as though you have something dear at stake. _____________________________________
I should be clear. I don't have a problem with obese people who notice their obesity and are on a reasonable plan to do something concerning it. This is one of those areas where intentions count, in my book, for a great deal.
It's the willfully obese, too caught up in their own glory to say "no" to themselves, or seek out and maintain a program that will help them say "no" to themselves that I can't be bothered with.
A lot of my friends are alcoholics. The ones who are dealing with it, as slowly as it takes, I find to be wonderful human beings. (Yet another judge on the quality of ones soul. We want to let in praise but rid ourselves of blame, can't we see that they are two sides of the same coin?) The alcoholics who worship Bukowski and want the entire world to orient themselves and bask in their addiction, usually don't stay my friends very long.
[ April 04, 2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:shouldn't judge a person's soul...something dear at stake
Yeah, I don't mind fat people until everyone in our department chips in for pizza. Then I know my share is at stake.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
mimsies - I read your posts and listened to you talk about the cysts, and I wanted to tell you I feel where you are.
With polycystic ovarian disease losing weight is darn near impossible, so I understand. I've done herculean feats to lose weight and not been able to do it. I've tried everything from fanatical exercise to starvation type diets and still been heavy.
The best shape I was ever in, I was working as a waitress at night and attending college during the day, walking the campus, I ate well, and I wore a size 6. But if you looked at me on paper, I was still 40 pounds overweight. Forty pounds! And a size 6!
I have no idea where I carried all that excess weight. My doctor told me women with PCOS could always fool the guess your weight people, because they were always heavier than they looked.
So now, I have thrown away my scale. I am trying to get healthier now, and yes I'd like to wear smaller clothes, but my main motivation is the ability to keep up with my kids. Yesterday we were riding bikes and scooters and I got tired earlier than I wanted to. I spent too long fighting depression and eating to make myself feel better, and I paid the price - now I want to fix it. So yes, some of this is my fault, and I'm not blaming the PCOS for all my weight. It makes it harder to lose, but I have only myself to blame for putting it on.
But here's what is upsetting me about Irami's attitude the most. I have no doubt that had he seen me when I was a size 6 he'd think I was worthy of his respect for my physical condition. But if he'd seen my stats on paper, he'd think I was lazy and should be ashamed of myself.
Weight is so arbitrary. When you see someone you have no idea what they've been through. They may have just given birth to twins. They may have PCOS. They may be on medications that cause them to gain weight, or have a lot of edema.
Judging people by how heavy they appear is no different to me than judging them by the color of their skin. Personally, I'd rather do neither.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I have no doubt that had he seen me when I was a size 6 he'd think I was worthy of his respect for my physical condition. But if he'd seen my stats on paper, he'd think I was lazy and should be ashamed of myself.
Even if we pretend that it's that simple, in the first case I would have been right and in the second case I would have been wrong. Somethings, like fitness, are often best judged by appearance. When I see the smoke, I think fire. When I see someone with glasses as thick as mine, I imagine that they can't see too well without them. And when I look at Ruben Studdard, I think, "He has a great voice and a lovely smile, but Man, that guy must have a lot of junk around his heart." ______
This actually has me thinking on good and bad souls. If we temporarily throw out right and wrong, it's worth noting that many times excessive behavior reveals itself as virtues. All of those manic/depressive poets and drug addled artists did beautiful work that they may not have produced without the presence of their vice.
If my understanding is correct, the God of the new testament doesn't have a bad side. I think that narrows ones idea of good or Godliness. I'm thinking about the Greek Gods who all have a bad sides, this side is extricably tied to their good sides, all different facets of the same quality. For example, Hera is the essence of wifely fidelity, and as glorious as this is, it leads her to commit audacious crimes born from jealousy, which are inextricably tied to her qualities of wifely fidelity. The same quality reveals itself in different ways. I'm quite taken with the implications of this idea. It's not new, it's as old as the human condition, and I've been thinking on it for a few years now, and I still haven't figured it all out.
[ April 04, 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
w00t! Size 6 and 40 lbs overweight? If I fit into a size 6, I could care less what the scale said. Kudos to you for tossing it. Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I have a dear friend who eats a diet that makes mine look like crap, doesn't eat sweets, runs 4 miles every night, hikes, swims...she ran the Seattle half Marathon earlier this year. I eat decently, but love chocolate and pasta and cheese, walk a mile a day, maybe garden a little. She will never, ever be as small as I am. Her kids are all way bigger tham nine, too. Eating right and exercise are very important, but sometimes genetcis play apart too.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think that a person can intuit health and care from ways other than size, even proportion. I don't know if these qualities can be reduced singly to pounds, dress sizes, how the weight is carried, or anything like that. I think the human mind knows this and does complex work before saying, "That guy is too fat." It's whole package, and I think, to an informed mind, it can be evaluated by appearance.
[ April 04, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So arrogant. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Don't waste your time Bev.
-Trevor
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I think the human mind knows this and does complex work before saying, "That guy is too arrogant."
mph
[ April 04, 2005, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:want to hit seventy home runs
quote:love chocolate and pasta and cheese
It's interesting how we adjust our wants to suit our genetic makeup.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Scott, I wouldn't comment on anyones soul here, because how would I know about the condition of it? However I do have a problem with someone who equates being obese with having a character flaw, and I take exception to him passing any sort of judgment on those people, regardless of if he personally knows them or not, based solely on appearance (and his own preconceived, unsupported beliefs).
I thought that was a point you were making in your first post, too.
I am not saying that being overweight is a good thing, or that people need to make excuses for their weight problems. However, I STILL find it amazing that Irami doesn't see the hypocrisy of judging people solely on their appearance, but then calling foul every time he thinks race could have been an issue on just about anything.
I guess it is only OK to be close-minded and bigoted if it is something that doesn't affect him in a personal manner.
Keep in mind that the standards as to what is acceptable have changed more than once, and that even doctors can't agree on what is healthy or not. When I was in the army, I always had to be weighed, because I am only 5'6'-5'7' tall, and according to their weight charts, which were made pre-1965, I was overweight. At 158 lbs, I was overweight. You could count my ribs under my tee-shirt, and when they did a body fat measurement I only had 17% body fat, way under their 22% max allowed....but I had to be weighed every time, 4 times a year, for the whole 3 years I was in the service.
There are a lot of people who could stand to lose a few pounds, but either can't do so, or won't....and that is their choice. As long as they aren't suing McDonald's for making them fat ( ), I don't have any say in what they do about their weight....if they do anything at all.
If it isn't a problem to them, then it isn't one for me, most of the time.
But the very thought that someone feels morally superior to anyone because of their weight makes me nauseated. Lots of people have problem with excess but are thin, and lots of people who can't seem to lose weight naturally have undergone a potentially dangerous, life threatening surgical operation just to lose the weight....showing me that it wasn't just a "moral weakness" or lack of moral strength that had been their problem. If anything they are more concerned with weight than we are, and are willing to risk everything to get rid of it.
I still think that Irami's willingness to act this way shows tells us more about his character than it does about the physical condition of the person he has judged and found lacking.
I find myself agreeing with Tom.....
There is more than one reason I am glad I am not Irami....and none of those reasons have anything to do with his race.
Kwea
[ April 04, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Was anybody here surprised when Clinton had heart trouble? Did you need to look at his EKG? Did you need a cholesterol count? Nope, all you needed to do was watch him eat, and you knew there was trouble brewing.
In 1992, when everyone was slapping him on the back, laughing with pride about the man's appetites, I think we would have served him better, if instead of being in awe and indulging him, more people said, "Whoa, Bill, I don't think you can eat whatever you want to whenever you want." And I'm sure at least one person said that for every five who were eager to serve him another helping. That one person was probably considered a prude, ruining a good time.
[ April 04, 2005, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: I should be clear. I don't have a problem with obese people who notice their obesity and are on reasonable plan to do something concerning it. This is one of those areas where intentions count, in my book, for a great deal.
So apparently you can tell just by looking at someone that they're working on it.
And I can't help but wonder what "glory" has to do with being permanently fat.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Was anybody here surprised when Clinton had heart trouble?
Would you be surprised to learn my sister-in-law has extremely high cholesterol?
You might be if you saw her. And followed her around and watched her eat.
Hers is entirely genetic, she weighs 115 pounds, wears a size 5-6 and detests fast food and eats sweets very rarely. Extremely healthy woman, to look at her.
Yet her cholesterol is extremely high and there is a family history of heart disease, and yes, all her family members that died of heart disease were also thin.
There is much more to know about a person's health than looking at their appearances.
I am overweight, but my blood pressure is extremely low and my cholesterol is within normal ranges - much lower than my skinny sister-in-law.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Non-smokers get lung cancer, and cigar smokers live to be 100, but there is a reason that doctors breath a sign of relief when they find out that their patient isn't a smoker, and inwardly grown when they see a new patient is a obese.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:So apparently you can tell just by looking at someone that they're working on it.
Sure, my chubby teenage nieces got Dance Dance Revolution for Christmas, and when I saw them yesterday, they both appeared to be in a lot better shape. (You have to look at someone TWICE)
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
Perhaps being somewhat new to this forum I missed the bridge on this one. Maybe someone can help me reject my widely held belief that 149 people wasted a lot of time talking about "fatness".
Perhaps Mr. Card's idea was to change our paradigm about how we treat each other and how we can utilize a new tool (whatever!) to get over it and get on with life without looking for unnecessary baggage to carry around.
Translated: instead of getting upset and ruining your day becasue of the way you are perceived, just say "whatever" and move on.
Kinda like supercalifragilousanexpealidocious but a lot shorter and without the music and penguins.
So, I sleep under a bridge and eat soup--whatever.
Hey, it works!
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Occupation: Bum Interests: Bridges and food kitchens
Sweet!
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
I think the root of all this is that we shouldn't be making character judgements on other people.
I just got done this morning explaining to a 6, 8 and 10-year-old that we should hold ourselves to very strict rules without holding anyone else to those rules. Your brother stole your book? That doesn't matter - you are not to steal, to hit, to scream. You've been good all day, so why should he be the one who gets to go to a birthday party? Because he does not figure in to your equation.
It is holding ourselves to the higher standard that makes us generous, forgiving human beings, while at the same time not excusing our own weaknesses and stagnating in our own progression. I am fatter than I need to be, and I need to work on that to improve my own health, and yes, my own character. But I'm not going to apply those standards to anyone else, because that is not my place. No social good comes of me determining that someone else is lacking.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Thank you, I was waiting for a post to make this thread worth staying in.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The other night I got a phone call asking me to help the neighbor move. I took off work early the next day and started helping to load the trailer. I didn't see my neighbor and wanted to know where he was. "Oh, he checked into a motel." They hadn't even begun to box things up. Does it help to know that the dude weighs 400 lbs?
Bad experiences add up, and I'm not getting any stupider.
Watching pizza disappear was the worst though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have mixed feelings about this. Now, I could stand to lose a bit of waistline myself, but I'm not fat - just a little pudgy and not very muscular. A level of fat that doesn't show through clothing is just going to have to be lived with, I think : Our lifestyle is more sedentary than our plains-living ancestors', and this is a fact that won't go away.
And then I walk about campus and I see people of nineteen who waddle as they walk, who are easily a meter across the hips. People you could roll along the corridor! I was utterly shocked when I came here a year ago and realised what the 'obesity epidemic' was all about. I had been envisioning a nation of people a little fatter than me. Not a nation of teddy bears!
Now, certainly there are people who can legitimately blame their genetics; but come on, there aren't this many. And when a character flaw gets to the point that it is actively threatening your health, I think others have a right to judge. Would we withhold judgment on someone who consistently drove while drunk?
There is also this : Humans are programmed to look for healthy, attractive mates. Beyond a certain level, fat is highly unhealthy. I don't think any public awareness campaign is going to be able to deal with this fundamental fact.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sure there are people who have only themselves to blame for being overweight. The point is, you can't tell by looking. It's called giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Would we withhold judgment on someone who consistently drove while drunk?
We judge them because driving while drunk is a danger to the public - and it affects more than just the drinker.
The fact that I'm overweight doesn't affect you in any way, it doesn't put you in any type of danger. I'm not even adding to the high cost of healthcare or medical insurance - I've never been treated by the doctor for a weight-related problem - I don't have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or diabetes.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:There is also this : Humans are programmed to look for healthy, attractive mates. Beyond a certain level, fat is highly unhealthy. I don't think any public awareness campaign is going to be able to deal with this fundamental fact.
Being too thin is also unhealthy, but it is portrayed as attractive anyway. If pudginess were also portrayed as attractive, for many people it would become so.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oooo, well said, mushroom.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think that the thinness portrayed as the ideal is still healthy - in the thinnest part of that range, certainly, but not actively dangerous. Nobody portrays starvation victims as ideals of beauty. Likewise, pudginess is one thing; I was talking about genuine obesity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most definitely, mph. While I find a decent number of skinny people attractive, I find the body type I am most attracted to is not the really skinny variety, but one with more curves.
Furthermore, I am somewhat annoyed at the media for mostly excluding my ideas of attractiveness in what they choose to broadcast for salacious consumption.
edit: mainly talking about romantic comedies here, which I rather like, particularly the ones that are more witty, as opposed to the mostly body humor ones (for instance, 50 First Dates good, Along Came Polly not so good).
[ April 04, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I always felt entitled to eat however I want, until middle child came along and was on the pudgy side, and I realized that our eating habits can be akin to second hand smoke. Now, don't take offense because you might never have made a meal out of a bag of chocolate chips, a can of condensed sweetened milk, a block of cream cheese, and a graham cracker crust. You might lack my imagination for food porn. But for me, I knew I was out of control and needed to stop.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They hadn't even begun to box things up. Does it help to know that the dude weighs 400 lbs?
Bad experiences add up, and I'm not getting any stupider.
Okay, I don't quite get what you're saying, here. I don't weigh anywhere near 400, but I hover around 300 -- and I've loaded my own moving vans, thank you very much.
Are you implying that there's some magic point around 350 pounds, perhaps, at which I'd start asking people to help me move without showing up myself?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think he's objecting to someone who took advantage of a neighbor's generosity while opting to shack at a motel.
100 pounds or 400, I'd still be a little incensed about the whole thing.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, yeah, I got that. What I'm interested in is why he considers the weight a factor.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Belle:
quote:The fact that I'm overweight doesn't affect you in any way
The broken sofa in my living room is a constant reminder of an overweight visitor. Paying full fare for an airline seat that is shared by an overweight passenger is only a temporary incovenience.
Yeah TomD, I think there is a magic number, which if you cross, you start to become a burden on others. However, I've seen some 400-pound guys who more than compensate for their weight with muscular strength. I guess the owner of the body has to decide where that invisible line is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Paying full fare for an airline seat that is shared by an overweight passenger is only a temporary incovenience.
I stick up for myself in those situations. They give me too little leg room as it is, I'm not giving up the ability to put my shoulders back against the seat.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: I think that the thinness portrayed as the ideal is still healthy
The problem with that assumption is that what is healthy for one is not healthy for another. Take the fairly arbitrary idea of having one's ribs showing. I have quite a few friends who are healthy, yet when they raise their arms, I can count their ribs. I, on the other hand, if I was at a weight at which you could count my ribs, would be in danger of dying of starvation/malnutrition, what have you.
By saying that people who are overweight choose to be so is unfair. Some people choose not to exercise, and not to consider their weight an issue for themselves. Some people choose to eat unhealthily, causing themselves cholesterol and weight problems.
quote: I should be clear. I don't have a problem with obese people who notice their obesity and are on a reasonable plan to do something concerning it. This is one of those areas where intentions count, in my book, for a great deal.
I'm gonna call BS on this one. You just said that if you see an overweight person on the street, you assume that they are not taking care of themselves and that that is why they are overweight. If what you mean by this is that people you have an association with are OK in your book if they are trying to control their weight and diet, then I'm sure the obese persons in your life are heartily thankful for the fact that you approve of them. ( )
I agree with your second point, however. I also call BS on the pro-fat website FAT! SO? (warning, bare butts). It hasn't been updated in quite some time, but still represents something fundamentally squicky to me. The "advice column" has a letter from a woman who complains that her thighs rub together when she walks, ruining her jeans regularly. The "columnist" advises that the writer sew leather patches between her thighs, and secondly says, "try spending more time engaged in activities that don't require your thighs to meet."
The innuendo I don't mind, but the idea that this person needs to spend more time sitting chafes me.
I agree with you on that point, Irami. I will also tell you that I don't feel qualified to judge your soul, or your personality in general, from this one aspect of yourself. But that doesn't mean that I'll just sit back and allow you to spout hateful, hypocritical opinions.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I like Irami; he always keeps us honest. I think he brings up good points. And Irami, if you remember, I started the "pretty" thread a long time ago precisely because it disturbed me that my genetic appearance made me stand out - whether for favor or disfavor. And yes, I've grown some since then. But I'd still rather have people like/judge me for my personal qualities than my appearance.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I've only seen him post things that were hateful, condescending, judging, and downright mean and spiteful. I wonder, sometimes, what makes him so angry and hateful. But then I realize that I can't be bothered to waste my time on someone who's so negative about so many things. If Irami could manage honest without hate, anger, and meanness, then I could tolerate him a lot better. Oh well.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I don't see Irami as hateful. I see him as ruthlessly honest - with himself more than anyone else. He says what he thinks and feels, and his standards are incredibly high. He comes across as harsh and unfeeling, but his integrity demands that he not soften his stance to cater to social preferences. And his opinions/positions are valid and worthy of examination. Irami's perspective is valuable, more so because it often goes against the grain.
I have often been hurt by Irami, but only because he is a knife-person. By this I mean that he doesn't mince words, and often speaks truths that are hard to hear. But I love him and treasure his perspective deeply. Like I said, he keeps me honest.
But at any rate, this thread isn't about any one person. I think we need to cut the boy some slack, and address his points instead of his personality. Calling someone "hateful", etc., is a really effective way of avoiding the issues brought up. A mild "I disagree" actually does more to invalidate a post than getting emotionally disturbed. And there are two great ways to honor a post: one is to debate it, and the other is to flame it. Either way gives it a lot of attention.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Shame for me is generally a de-motivator. It paralyzes and causes hopelessness. The only reason I exercise now is that I've found something I enjoy, not because I was worried about being fat (I'm 150 pounds and nearly 5'4", if you care to condemn me for edging just over the government's guidelines for people of my height). I think that constant worrying about what other people will think of me, self-hatred, and an obsession with food and exercise are more unhealthy than those extra ten pounds I'm carrying around.
If shame over one's weight is a motivator toward a more healthy lifestyle, fine. But I have my doubts that it is, especially since many, many overweight people are ashamed of their bodies (and many who are of a healthy weight or even underweight are also ashamed, which I consider to be a direct result of the shame we heap on truly overweight people). Should those who are overweight be encouraged to form more healthy habits? Of course! I think that we can all work on something, whether it's healthier eating habits or quitting smoking or being kinder to others. I just don't think that shame and hatred are proper motivators for encouraging anyone to become a better person.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Shigosei, I couldn't agree more. Shame seems like bullying to me. I prefer to manipulate people by smiling and telling them how good they will feel or how much fun they will have. It works for me!
I mean, if I can get my daughter's friends to scrub my floors and snap beans just by presenting it as a fun activity... It doesn't work to tell the kids they SHOULD help. I just ask, nicely and with an expectation that they WILL say yes, and offer a positive reward (then we'll have time to watch a movie, you can take some beans home to your family). How much could people accomplish if they focused on the positive things they want in life rather than dwelling on the negative?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Thanks for saying that, Jenny, since that's pretty much how I interpreted Irami's posts. I actually think people are very slightly misreading Irami's posts (because they can fairly easily be taken as being hateful) and Irami himself doesn't seem to quite see where he's saying things that can be misinterpreted. Kinda talking past each other a teensy bit.
I don't think he ever said that he hates fat people regardless of their individual cases and they should all be judged as inferior specimens of the human race. I think he's saying that people who really are extremely obese for no reason other than they don't get off their butts should be called on the fact that it is their fault that they are overweight. I agree with him (if indeed I am interpreting him correctly).
I do, however, think Irami is using the word "sight" too generally in this case. He said he could tell by "looking" at a person whether they were obese by choice, when I think it would be clearer to say that when he interacts with someone who is obese by their own choice of lifestyle, he does judge them to be gluttonous or whatever. I don't think this means that he walks down the street looking at the fat people and covering them with a vitrolic spew of callous categorizations of the worth of their character. In fact, I think it makes him merely honest about his values; everyone passes SOME sort of judgement over everything, or we'd have no ethics at all, and I don't think judgement in that sense is a bad word. I don't think Irami automatically ASSUMES that an obese person is a self-absorbed glutton. This is, however, again a case of his clarity, not intent.
I think Irami recognizes that no matter HOW active some people are, they're never going lose their weight because of genetic factors or body types or whatever. He's saying that (after he interacts with an obese person) when he reasons that they are unhealthy precisely beCAUSE of their choices, that it is indeed an indication of their character and priorities.
(Feel free to jump in here and tell me if I'm making you out to be too much of a saint, though, Irami. )
Lack of tone of voice can hurt clarity as well. I didn't read his posts as a haughty, arrogant, condescending, or holier-than-thou, I read them as very strong opinions voiced in a reasonable, calm tone of voice, which is what I hope y'all are reading *my* posts as.
I used to be pretty dang chubby. You couldn't even see my adam's apple because it was buried under too many layers of skin. I'm pretty reasonably fit now, and that's due almost entirely to getting myself together and working out. Which I enjoy doing, when I make the time. And, yes, the motivating factors were shame that I was living an unhealthy lifestyle that would make me keel over before I was fifty, and annoyance that my pants wouldn't fit. *grin*
So. Hopefully I helped unmuddy the waters a bit? I don't think Irami has an ugly soul, if he believes in 'em. And I disagree with him on many things (his "dude" comments on other threads, for instance, heh), so I don't think I'm trying to suck up to him. But I don't think he's been treated quite fairly here, and though he's perfectly capable of defending himself, in this case perhaps an outside party might help calm things down?
Of ocurse, I might be giving him too much credit. One never knows, I suppose. This is coming from the guy with a million posts in the hug thread, after all.
Edit: Also, I type way the heck too slowly. Jenny, I was referencing your post before Shig's, not the one right before this one *laugh*.
I don't think shame should be a PRIMARY motivating force for someone; the beneficial results of whatever you're trying to motivate yourself to do should be the ideal goal. However, I think it does no good to sugarcoat things to the point where people are absolved of feeling no shame whatsoever if indeed what they are feeling bad about is something one SHOULD feel bad about.
Edit numbah dos: not that I'm arguing with Shig, though, when in her case the shame becomes paralyzing. That's definitely not good or beneficial. I guess...moderation in all things, even the bad?
[ April 05, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I do. I still stick by it, but I'm not basing it only on the comments in thise thread. I suppose I could take it down if people are terribly offended.
Condemning those who are overweight is like condemning those who are poor. Student loans are available to everyone, and it is possible to major in things that generate a good income, and so being poor is obviously a choice and a sign of deficient moral character. Families rarely remain wealthy for more than two or three generations, so most millionaires are self-made millionaires. In order to earn that much money, work must be done, often creative and since most millionaires own their own business, clearly those are the ones who possess the work ethic and the self-discipline to devote their resources and energy into employing people and building society.
Since earning money and creating the infrastructure that allows other people to live is a morally good activity, doing otherwise when that is possible is an immoral activity. Anyone can do it, so not doing is a sign of depravity. Therefore, poor people are poor by choice and prove their lack of self-discipline and work ethic, and are therefore immoral.
---
This isn't outlandish. There is a long history of money earned being a sign of virtue, and it takes self-discipline and dedication to put yourself in a position of earning that much money. There are exceptions, but about as many exceptions in that direction as there are people who would always be skinny no matter what their lifestyle.
But there are only so many hours in a day and so much dedication to spread around. You can choose to preen your vanity and spend all your time on your body as a creation, or you can spend it building businesses and society to allows other people to spend all their time devoting themself to their body. OSC was right in saying that being in physically perfect condition in our society now takes money and leisure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I see him as ruthlessly honest - with himself more than anyone else."
Hm. I, too, see Irami as ruthlessly honest, but disagree that he is more honest with himself than with others. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think it's interesting that on every controversial thread, someone's character gets called into question.
For a lot of people, being overweight and out of shape is a choice. For others, there's nothing to do but be pleasantly plump.
But let's be clear-- rare is the case where one must, by nature, be morbidly obese.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think it's interesting that on every controversial thread, someone's character gets called into question."
I'm not surprised. What makes something controversial is that, one way or another, it's a character judgement.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:There is a long history of money earned being a sign of virtue, and it takes self-discipline and dedication to put yourself in a position of earning that much money. There are exceptions, but about as many exceptions in that direction as there are people who would always be skinny no matter what their lifestyle.
Sometimes I talk about lapses in my american social education, and I think this is one of them. What you see "a long history," I see as an inappropriate WASP fetish, born from a historically timely mix of protestantism and utilitarianism in England, coming over on the Mayflower, taking seed in our fertile soil, and proliferating like that virus in Speaker of the Dead. I think I'm innoculated such disease because I know the evil of other such vices with a "long history."
You can look at wealth as a sign of fortitude in character, and I'll continue to see obesity as a little suspicious, and taken to the extreme, you can look at enormous wealth as a sign of Godliness and I'll continue to see morbid obesity as a severe problem, and maybe we are both right, and maybe we are both wrong, or maybe it's a mix. But I'm going to keep arguing against drives to make fat cool. ________
As to the rest:
quote:What makes something controversial is that, one way or another, it's a character judgement.
That's the exact reason I don't mind attacks on my character. At least it gets people talking and thinking with the morally relevant issues.
___ Edit: Jenny,
I don't have a problem with you being hot. If anything, it adds to the morale of the great state of Indiana.
[ April 05, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dating from Puritanical times counts as a long history.
Do you really want to toss out accusations of fetish when your standard of a good character is a devotion to the way their body looks?
[ April 05, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
A respect for health, not a respect for wealth.
If I had a choice between spending a weekend with twenty of the healthiest sixty year-olds in the US and twenty of the wealthiest sixty year-olds in the US, I'd go for health. I think that there may be more wisdom in mining their habits, and understanding their motivations.
[ April 05, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I'm curious as to how many people who have taken offense to Iramis post are actually "morbidly obese". I'm not taking a poll here. But I've looked up as many peoples pictures as I could on foobonic, and paid attention to how people describe themselves, and I have not seen or heard ONE person who truly seems to be way overweight. They may view themselves that way, and they may indeed be considered obese by todays health standards. But most people seem to be taking offense because of the way they view themselves, and how they IMAGINE Irami would view them if they met in person. This is such a consistent theme in our society. We judge ourselves so much more harshly than others do, for the most part. Not that there isnt the occasional a**hole out there who will mock you for whatever makes you different from them(skillery, I'm thinking about your tasteless pizza and fat people remarks right now). But most people have more empathy than that. Think of all the supportive comments, compared to the negative comments on this thread alone. I was talking to a friend of mine last night about this thread, and we got to talking about how we judge ourselves. I have had moments in the past where a 14 year old boy would say something nasty about my appearance, and I would go home and cry. How others viewed me meant so much to me that I allowed myself to be hurt by an ignorant, bratty little kid. I can laugh at that now, but I'm still paranoid about how others percieve me, and weight is a big part of that perception. But everybody I have ever talked to honestly about it has said that they dont percieve me as overweight. I'm 5ft9, and I weigh anywere from 190 to 210, depending. I have boobs that contribute to what feels like half that weight, but I still look at my body and say "ugh... nasty, flabby ickiness". I will walk down the street, and if I get any positive attention, I assume the guy is staring at my breasts and I call him a jerk. My boyfriend tells me he thinks I'm gorgeous, and I giggle uncomfortably and change the subject quickly. I dont want to accuse him of lying, but in my heart of hearts, I know he must be. But all of this is coming from no one but myself. My self perception is what makes me feel uncomfortable and ugly. I cant go blaming my parents, or the kids in school who called me tubby, or the numerous men who dont find me attractive enough to stare at lasciviously. How I feel about myself is totally controlled by me.
I dont really give a good damn how Irami would judge me if I ever saw him on the street. He is entitled to his views, as I am to mine. If he ever said something nasty, that would be one thing, but I cant imagine he would. And everything he has said in this discussion has been impersonal and, yes, very honest. That is all well and good. He can judge others for their lack of strength, and I can pity him for his seeming lack of empathy. But his view will not be allowed to affect how I look at myself. I can only say that I hope the same goes for everyone who has felt offended by what others have said on this topic. The only thing that really matters is how you view yourself. You could be 100lbs over weight, and still be immensly attractive because that is how you percieve yourself to be. It used to drive me crazy, going out with my mom, because she would get all these guys hitting on her. She views herself as an earth goddess, and thats how men look at her. The older I get, the more I try to emulate that additude. And it really works.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I've looked up as many peoples pictures as I could on foobonic, and paid attention to how people describe themselves, and I have not seen or heard ONE person who truly seems to be way overweight."
I'm pretty morbid, dude.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
No your not, Tom. I'd say your were optimistic and perky, not morbid . And handsome, to boot.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm definitel overweight and it's not just my perception.
And I recognize and know it's not the most healthy way to live, and I'm working on it.
The thing that bothers me about snap judgments based on appearances is you have no idea where someone really is.
For example, if you saw somone who was 5'3" and 180 pounds, you may think to yourself "that's a lazy, gluttonous pig who doesn't care about herself."
But what if a year ago she had weighed 300 pounds? Doesn't that change things? Suddenly she's not a lazy gluttonous pig but someone who does care about her body and is working hard to improve it.
At first glance, you cannot know that. So, assumptions based on appearances are, to me, rude, insensitive, and bigoted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I had a choice between spending a weekend with twenty of the healthiest people in the US and twenty of the wealthiest people in the US, I might go for health. I think that there may be more wisdom in mining their habits.
Actually, I'd bet alot that neither the 20 healthiest nor the 20 wealthiest people have a lot of practical advice, because the extremes are less likely to have advice usable by the average person.
There are a legion of bad habits that prevent accumulation of wealth. There are a legion of things beyond a person's control that prevent accumulation of wealth.
There are a legion of bad habits that prevent maintenance of good health. There are a legion of things beyond a person's control that prevent maintenance of good health.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And handsome, to boot."
Nope. I coast on a certain amount of charisma and a truly palpable ego, but I'm afraid that "handsome" doesn't really apply. I'm shaped like a beachball.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Actually, I'd bet alot that neither the 20 healthiest nor the 20 wealthiest people have a lot of practical advice, because the extremes are less likely to have advice usable by the average person.
Excellent point, Dag.
I'd rather just spend a weekend with my husband, sans kids. Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: But I'm going to keep arguing against drives to make fat cool.
I'm not pushing to make fat cool. I'm saying what it seems to me that foundling is saying. With opinions like the ones you're expressing as the majority in social interactions right now, even people who are healthy feel bad about themselves. Even people who are underweight feel like they need to lose weight. With people who are skinny glorified, anorexia has spiraled out of control.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Tom, you are plenty handsome, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether you really want all of that weight around your heart in 20 years.
Ryuko,
Maybe anorexia is spiraling out of control, but from my vantage, I see the brunt of the problem being beer, fast food, cheese, no vegtables, and people feeling entitled to sit around. And yeah, I think OSC is pushing to make fat cool, but through back door "pudgy."
[ April 05, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I thought OSCs whole point was to change the image of "healthy" back to "actually healthy."
The standard of how big the "world" says our bodies should be is much smaller than what is healthy for a lot of people.
I don't think anybody was saying that fat should be cool. But what really bothers me is that a curvy, healthy woman is made to feel fat because she's not a calista flockhart, lora flynn boyle, etc. Women are supposed to have curves--they're not supposed to be sticks.
Remember that movie with Minnie Driver and Chris O'Donnell? (Circle of Friends--had to look it up) I remember being totally shocked that hollywood was making a big deal about her weight. She looked awesome! Also, Kate Winslet in Titanic was a great, curvy leading lady. These women were normal. I thought it was great.
There's a point where extra weight is unhealthy and it is different for everyone. That's not "cool." But that doesn't mean they wanted it that way or that they're just lazy slobs. There have been enough stories on this thread to the contrary to prove that you just can never know.
I think everyone should shoot for a healthy weight. Whatever that turns out to be.
-Katarain
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*shoots weight*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*sigh* My father is a fitness fanatic. I remember when my mother was thin. I remember when she got heavier. I remember why she got heavy (she was raising and homeschooling their three children). I remember him nagging her for *years* about her weight, because he wanted her to "be healthy".
I remember going home after a year of two brutal semesters of school and having my father tell me *I* was getting fat and needed to watch myself. (I thought I could always stay thin enough he wouldn't nag me like he did Mom.) I laughed at him because in reality I was thinner than I was before, however I had lost muscle tone which was why I'd lost weight. I agree pale and gaunt doesn't equal healthy, but it doesn't equal "fat" either.
I had several major illnesses two years ago, in the span of 6 months. After that I gained almost 30 lbs. I've managed to lose 20 of it. My BMI is 25. Yet one of the things I'm dreading about visiting my family in CA, this year, is having my father tell me I'm fat, because I don't have the muscle tone I had when I was 16.
*shrug*
AJ
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Wow. I'm sorry, AJ. My father's bothered me about my weight before... In fact, he almost got me a subscription to Weight Watchers for Christmas. Luckily my mom stopped him before he made that particular mistake. But he's never been that bothersome about it. He prefers to reserve his nagging for other things.
[ April 05, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Incidentally now that we can all drive and my mother isn't playing "mommy taxicab" she and my dad have started biking again and she had more time to cook things specifically for her metabolism, rather than the bulk carb meals my brothers require because they are atheletes, the weight melted off of her.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My dad has too, and he did it when I was much more slender than I am now, right after I'd lost fifteen pounds by almost starving myself for seven months.
I couldn't exercise for almost a year after a car accident, and that coincided with the start of my first desk job and the beginning of commuting, so the incidental exercise went to almost nil. I don't have to imagine what my family says about me.
[ April 05, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My seven year old is overweight - according to the charts.
She is very, very heavy, try picking her up and you'll see. The pediatrician told me she is one of the kids in which the charts mean nothing. They're of value only to track her growth over time, but they don't indicate her current situation.
She is a gymnast, and is extremely active - on the afternoons she's not at the gym she's outside riding her bike or her scooter or running and playing. She is *not* skinny by any means - but has a lot of muscle and weighs a lot because of it.
I cannot stand the attitudes that so many people have (like your dad, AJ) that weight is of value in judging someone's health. Yeah, I know it's impossible to tell at a glance that my blood pressure is low, my cholesterol is in normal ranges, and I have no health concerns right now. It is easier to tell look at me and say "Wow, she needs to lose weight."
People who are of normal weight can be unhealthy. People who are overweight can be healthy. I know it's impossible for visual creatures like us not to judge people by appearances, but it still makes me crazy.
I don't want Emily to find one of those charts, weigh herself, and think she's fat. Same story with my oldest daughter, who is extremely confident with her weight and looks. She is, however, faced with friends who aren't. She has 12 year old classmates who eat Lean Cuisine for lunch and constantly moan about how fat they are. Natalie and I were discussing it the other day and she's concerned about her friends - she said to me "I'm worried about Rebecca mom - she thinks she's fat and I don't think she is. She's skinnier than me, and I love my body. I just wish she would be happier with herself."
I wanted to cry - just to hear my 12 year old say she loved her body. Her only complaint is that she wishes she were taller, but with a 5'3" mom and a 5"6 Dad, she's not got much hope of being tall.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I wonder why fathers want their daughters to be "perfect". This is the same person who always criticised me because I had acne. Told me to not eat any number of various food because he was convinced that that was why I was breaking out...
I truly think he thought that being critical of my appearance was partially necessary so that I didn't have an overinflated ego about my looks. The fact is, that there was absolutely no danger of that. I think he was convinced that I was so beautiful that he'd have to fend boys off with a stick or something. Nice delusion, but considering that I can count the number of guys I've ever dated on a single hand, it shows how delusional it was. I'm merely of ordinary attractiveness, no matter how much he thought otherwise.
(not to mention, even the ones who were attracted to my appearance, normally got very, very scared, when they met my brain.)
AJ
[ April 05, 2005, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My step father made fun of my looks when I was Natalie's age. Especially because I developed early, he made jokes about my having a well developed chest. I think he thought it would make me less self-conscious if he turned it into something funny.
It mortified me and made me ashamed of my body and hate my body.
I have made a real point with my daughter to tell her that breasts are not something to be ashamed of, that she should understand they're part of what makes us women and not to look on them as either something to flaunt and be overly proud of, nor something to hide and pretend she doesn't have.
I hope I've done better with her than my step dad did with me.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Dads who hassle their daughters have a special place reserved on my list of unmitigated hatred, which is a very short list.
I had a friend whose overweight father constantly hassled her about the size of her thighs. It was all I could do to keep from throttling him.
I don't know what my Dad thinks of me, but frankly I think the Mormon thing probably bothers him more than anything else, so I have no desire to find out.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*takes notes*
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lol, I'll give my father this, whatever you might say about him, for what he said to me, he isn't a hypocrite. He works out for at least 2 hours a day himself, and is in darn good physical condition. He's got a list of things like chocolate, soda, coffee and tea that he won't eat because he thinks they are unhealthy. (Believe me he's "cleaner" living than most LDS).
My mother went grey before him, and in some pictures I have of them together you'd think she was 10 years older than he was.
Incidentaly on the chocolate, I always thought it was incredibly unfair of him that he yelled at me about eating it. Because the fact was and still is, I don't like the tast of anything darker than hershey's milk chocolate, and any candy that I'd choose to eat, would be something like Reeeses Pieces or Rollows with peanutbutter or caramel inside.
aj
Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
Isn't it crazy that being fat and having fair skin was more attractive because it meant you had a lot of money to eat and not have to work in the sun. (sorry if someone else posted about this. I'm just lazy)
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
My step father was also very critical of my appearance, and had me convinced (with the help of some very heartless teenaged boys) that I was hideously ugly and very fat.
I've come to terms with the fact that I'll never be a super model, but neither am I a mutant. And I may be chubby NOW, in my 40's working a very sedentary job, but I was not even close when I was an active 16 year old.
As many bad things as I've said about my daughters' father over the years, he's always been very positive about their appearance.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
In some (most?) places in the world, having fair skin is still considered very attractive. I am convinced that this is the only reason I got hit on so much more in Mexico than my cute girlfriends.
It's only in places like Minnesota and Sweden that tan people are beautiful.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
If I had been born even a hundred years ago, I'd probably be married already. Note: Not just because it was the style, but also because I'd be sought after.
(Of course, if I was born a hundred years ago, I probably never would have been born... It's scary to look at how many times I'd have died already if I wasn't born when I was.)
[ April 05, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
If I were born a hundred years ago, I'd be a low-class servant girl getting blamed for breaking all the china. But I probably would be pleasantly slim.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
My bodytype could never be slim... I'd probably be on some farm somewhere pumping out babies. Gah. I'm glad I'm here and now.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
If I'd been born a hundred years ago, I'd be dead. They didn't do partial chordectomies back then, except maybe in the middle of swordfights.
I'm the sort of guy who has trouble gaining weight even if I try. There was a period in college when I was eating five meals a day, at least two of them fast food (to use up my declining balance so the money didn't go to waste). I gained perhaps five pounds, no more, and not because I was working it off; I'm dreadfully lazy about physical activisty. Being a picky eater doesn't help, but I eat enough fatty foods that that shouldn't matter much.
Sometimes I think I would have been more attractive to women if I were fat, because I've never managed to build up muscle mass either. Still single.
[ April 05, 2005, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Just to tell you so, girls who are fans of skinny boys exist. I am one of them. I actually like my boys almost unhealthily skinny. I dunno why.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Wow. I cant imagine having a dad who dared to talk to me about my weight. My father would be Mortified te mention domething like that. I remember the only thing my dad ever said to me about my appearence.It was at a wedding where I was wearing a rather slinky black dress, having just lost a goodly amount of weight, and doing alot of the organizing and seating of people. I felt all important, but also very self conscious. My father came up and drew me aside and said "Sarah, you look beautiful, but you need to stop slumping. Put your shoulders back, and be proud of the way you look." I have never forgot that one time. Everytime I feel myself slumping I remember my father telling me to be proud and have good posture. I still slump, but t makes me happy to remember. I bet every negative thing said would stick just as well.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ryuko: Anime. That's why you like skinny boys. AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And I have it on good authority not every girl likes heavily muscled men.
Not that I've ever been heavily muscled, mind you but like anything else, it's a matter of taste.
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yup, I personally find lean muscle mass far more attractive for eye candy.
AJ
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
AJ:
(thinks)
O_o You may be right...
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I don't doubt it, Ryuko, but there just didn't seem to be any such women at my high school. And, to be honest, I really didn't have much lean muscle mass either.
[ April 05, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Actually, I'd bet alot that neither the 20 healthiest nor the 20 wealthiest people have a lot of practical advice, because the extremes are less likely to have advice usable by the average person.
Man, you guys are into practical advice. I actually think that the twenty healthiest people would be more interesting and wise. Then again, I'm of the opinion that healthy people tend to glow and businessmen tend toward oozing, so your mileage may vary.
Edit: And this is going to be controversial.
If my daughter is picking up unhealthy habits, I think it's irresponsible not to say anything.
[ April 05, 2005, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
I agree, Irami. But the situations I've seen were not cases of fathers giving concerned advice on unhealthy habits. They were purely based on looks.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
If my girl comes back from her first year of college 25 pounds of chub heavier, I'm going to assume it's beer and fried food, and since I can't imagine having much of either in my house, we are going to talk.
[ April 05, 2005, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:businessmen to toward oozing so your mileage may vary
Yeah, we really suck. Giving good jobs and benefits to people, working 90 hour weeks in an attempt to build something lasting.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Something lasting, anything lasting, so much so that the measures of success are how long it lasts and how much it makes. Most of america is enamoured with the cult of the businessman. I feel comfortable withholding my support and voicing what I see as undignified priorities.
[ April 05, 2005, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, we're all amoral scum.
Grow the hell up.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The measures of success aren't how long it lasts and how much it makes, with everything else being auxiliary?
I'm not sure that growing-up carries the sense of buying into the charisma of the industial complex, but that's me. There is something to be said for selling people what they need. There is something to be said for selling people what they want. There is something to be said for alerting people to their wants. There is something to be said for instilling a want in people that didn't previously exist. And there is something to be said for doing all of these at a profit.
But if success in these ventures is the acme American culture, I'll pass.
[ April 05, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Irami, you can't run a business that isn't profitable, at least a little. You need money, to pay the employees, the taxes, the medical insurance, the benefits, the lease on the building, the equipment, and utilities.
If inflows exceed outflows even once, you either have to lay people off, shut down the business (in which case everyone loses their job), or buy money from somewhere (the owners, in which case it's equity, or a lender, in which case it's a loan).
There's no two ways about it. They HAVE to make money. And they don't need pretentious, self-righteous prigs telling them there's no dignity in it.
I didn't say it was the "acme of American culture." You're the one into sweeping over-generalizations and insulting vast swaths of the population.
Dagonee
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
My mother beats all of your fathers. When I was 14, I weighed about 100 pound (I was and am 5'4''). A lot of that was muscle since I was running cross country and cheering. My mother and I went bathing suit shopping and I found one I really liked. She said to me, "I'll get it for you, but you have to promise not to gain any weight." That was the year when my doctor and both my coaches told her that I needed to gain weight. She told me not to listen to them.
This is just one of a volume of stories about my mother and my weight.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Yeah, don't get me started. I preferred my dad's method... he likes to poke me in the side-pudge and mentioning how skinny and active HE still is at his age, but then we'll wrestle or fight because I know he's proud of how strong I am and it makes me feel better.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"But you have to promise not to gain any weight."
Oy, vey.
And Dag? Don't wind yourself up - you'll make yourself crazy.
-Trevor
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
quote: Incidentaly on the chocolate, I always thought it was incredibly unfair of him that he yelled at me about eating it. Because the fact was and still is, I don't like the tast of anything darker than hershey's milk chocolate, and any candy that I'd choose to eat, would be something like Reeeses Pieces or Rollows with peanutbutter or caramel inside
Just being technical, but I'm pretty sure dark chocolate is healthier than milk chocolate and has less sugar.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sigh. Irami I was *not* twenty five pounds heavier. The reason why I was looking a little flabby was because I was working my butt off taking 15-18 units of only engineering courses per semester because it was the educational plan I'd worked out with the same man I call my father. I didn't have time to exercise.
In order to get the grades he wanted me to get it meant no sleep more often than not. This is the same man that told me an 800 on the Verbals section of the SAT wasn't good enough, why didn't I get a perfect score on the math too?
I couldn't ever be perfect enough for him, even though I came *damn* close to it. So I gave up trying.
AJ
[ April 05, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm not talking in terms of health, I'm talking in terms of quantity of actual chocolate present. Reeses are more peanutbutter than chocolate, and anything with chocolate in it I normally prefer chocolate as the accent flavor rather than the dominant flavor.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
You can gain quite a lot of weight drinking no beer and eating no fried foods, Irami. And jumping to conclusions like that is what made all these ladies feel so bad about themselves even when they didn't have to.
I didn't gain weight over the summer because I was lazy or because I was drinking beer. I gained weight because I worked the night shift, which really effed up my system.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
not to mention that university cafeteria food which is normally what you are stuck eating is ofteng greasy crap and you have no alternative other than starving or spending an arm and a leg for food while you live in a dorm after you've already bought a meal plan.
AJ
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Agreed. Sometimes the only edible thing in the entire cafeteria is the pizza, and I'm not even so sure about that. I'd personally rather eat food that's bad for me than go through malnutrition.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, it's nearly impossible to eat healthy foods on a meal plan. Especially when there's no cafeteria near my dorm.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The 25 pounds comment wasn't directed at anyone. I was talking about a state of affairs. But come on, troops, that's a lot of weight for an 18 year old to put on in a year's time, unless he/she is still growing and without a story or a pregnancy involved. But if anyone freshman does put on 25 pounds of fat in a year, there very well may be something broken. I'd say the same if a healthy sized 18 year old lost twenty-five pounds in a year.
Maybe guys like me are the reason so many women are depressed about their body image, but I think it's more complicated than that. I even think it has something to do with girls not being pushed to be physically active when they are in fifth and six grade, or even younger. A lot of guys have never seen the inside of a gym, but they were riding their bikes around the neighborhood since they were 10. That's a large scale culture difference between men and women, and I don't know what to say about that.
I hear now that boys are playing video games and that's starting them up on lifestyle habits that aren't healthy.
[ April 05, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
In less than a year in high school, at the age of fourteen/fifteen, I gained 60 pounds and doubled my pants size.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
At which point, I would have pulled you aside, as a good father should, and ask, "what's up"?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I realized you weren't directing that at any one person, but I was using myself as an example. Gaining weight one's freshman year is common and can be attributed to things like stress, being unprepared to control one's own diet, changing or busy schedule, etcetera. Also, many people's metabolism changes around the time that they enter college, and they find that they aren't able to eat what they are used to. On top of that, doing schoolwork necessitates a lot of sitting around. It's not all about being partygoers, lazy, or not caring.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Oh, yes, my parents just sat aside and watched me get chubby
Their "concern" only made it worse. Plus the reason it happened was that was the year I took my health into my own hands, if they'd intervened too much would have been a bit counterproductive.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Ryuko,
And all of those changes can be made and/or noticed before they become out of control. I actually know quite a few women who gained weight in college and lost it around 25/26. I think it was alcohol, or they started taking themselves more seriously, but it's too common to be a fluke.
MyrddinFyre,
In retrospect, are you sure that there isn't anything anyone could have done, even you, to help?
_______
As an aside, everytime I see Dr. Phil's book at the bookstore, I think to myself, "This fat man has some audacity to write a book on how to lose weight." Apparently, people are buying it. Maybe he is healthy. I know that in the Midwest, people are just bigger than they are in California. I'm not saying it's healthy for them, or for the country, but it's definitely the case. It may have something to do with the weather, but I also had a hard time getting good produce in Minnesota, and I think that had quite a bit to do with it. People also smoked more, so I don't think that it's merely the lack of produce.
[ April 05, 2005, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Definitely, but my blood sugars haven't gotten any better since then. And I've pretty much given up. *shrug*
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Which just goes back to the unhealthy habit of constantly weighing oneself. Regardless of whether some people are able to do such a thing without having any ill effects, many of them are willing to starve themselves so that they can see that number on the scale go down.
I understand what you mean, that people who gain twenty or forty or whatever pounds in college should notice that before it gets out of hand, making them obese. From what I can tell, you're trying to say that obese people are responsible for their own condition at such time as it becomes obvious that they could have done something about their weight problem but didn't.
But what I'm trying to say is that nothing is black and white like that. To say that someone is completely to blame for being obese no matter what is like saying that someone is completely to blame for being bipolar when they are genetically disposed to it. Because if they had noticed earlier, they could have controlled their thoughts better and stopped the progression of the illness before it came to a stage where it was a danger to themselves.
All I'm trying to say is that the culture and outlook that you are promoting causes more harm than good when it comes to people's self-image and decisions about themselves. Only by keeping people educated and keeping them distant from emotions like shame and guilt about their weight will they be able to make any significant progress toward health. Because if shame is the only motivating factor in someone's weight loss, they will stop when they no longer feel shame. Conversely, if they continue to feel shame, they will never stop, causing diseases like anorexia and bulimia, which only began to exist after the culture of thin gained speed in America.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:As an aside, everytime I see Dr. Phil's book at the bookstore, I think to myself, "This fat man has some audacity to write a book on how to lose weight." Apparently, people are buying it. Maybe he is healthy.
I'm no Dr.Phil fan, but if you feel competant to call him "fat", which is an ugly word in your vocabulary, I don't see you as being someone with enough perspective to be taken seriously with regards to this issue.
(editted to qualify my too general statement)
[ April 05, 2005, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: I know that in the Midwest, people are just bigger than they are in California. I'm not saying it's healthy for them, or for the country, but it's definitely the case. It may have something to do with the weather, but I also had a hard time getting good produce in Minnesota, and I think that had quite a bit to do with it. People also smoked more, so I don't think that it's merely the lack of produce.
I don't think you meant it that way, but this feels like a personal attack. It's true that it's difficult to find some produce in MN, and that that may influence the shape of people here, but by saying something like that, you negate the personal choice edict that you yourself introduced! You implied that if people were overweight, it was because of choices that they had made that they were responsible for. How can you reconcile that with the comments you're making about the Midwest?
Humorous aside: People may smoke more cigarettes in MN than in California, but I'm sure people smoke more weed in California than in MN.
That said, the reason that, as you say, people in the midwest are bigger than people in California or what have you is that generally speaking we come from similar genetic stock, people that were all from colder countries in Europe and were therefore more likely to stand up to the cold climates we have in the midwest. That necessitates being bigger than "normal." People here, myself included, are genetically likely to be bigger, more powerful, more efficient heat and fat producing machines than people in the south or from other genetic stock.
In addition, saying "Maybe he is healthy." about Dr. Phil implies that you can't tell by looking at him, which was supposedly a part of your argument. I'm genuinely surprised, and I'm not trying to insult you here, that you continue to be so ignorant about this particular topic, yet cling to your opinions so tenaciously. I've never debated with you before, and I don't debate very often, so I can't be sure if this is regular practice and you are just trying to see how much of this you can do. Are you playing devil's advocate here?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I know this goes back a bit, but my pictures on foobonic are 14 and 16 years old. If you want a more current picture of me, there is a snapshot here. The thing is, we have favorite pictures of ourselves. I'm not going to post my "before Body for Life" swimsuit photos. And you should be glad. I'm sure there is something against it in the Patriot Act.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Dr. Phil is a big boy. Maybe he is average sized, but if that's average sized, then I think we've gone too far.
I remember seeing Ariel Sharon, Dick Cheney, and another world leader with a Sharon sized belly at conference, and I remember thinking, "These fat guys are going to go into a room and divvy up the world." It was the strangest sight. There was something odd about watching these three guys, (I think Cheney goes up and down and he was looking pretty big at this time) are going to go to a room, and at the end, someone was going to get bombed. It was like the last scene from "Animal Farm."
[ April 05, 2005, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
You're so cute, pooka.
I understand what you mean about that, though. I posted only the pictures of myself that I liked, and the most recent picture I have up on foobonic is almost a year old.
Of course there are all those terrible fat pictures of me from the wedding... Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think you meant it that way, but this feels like a personal attack. It's true that it's difficult to find some produce in MN, and that that may influence the shape of people here, but by saying something like that, you negate the personal choice edict that you yourself introduced! You implied that if people were overweight, it was because of choices that they had made that they were responsible for. How can you reconcile that with the comments you're making about the Midwest?
It's a little bit of this, and a little bit of that. If your parents don't eat well, don't feed you well, and don't encourage healthy habits and a general respect for your body, everyone in your class is overweight, and it's hard to get fresh produce, I'm not going to blame a 17 year old who is morbidly overweight, that's like trying a kid for a felony.
quote:That said, the reason that, as you say, people in the midwest are bigger than people in California or what have you is that generally speaking we come from similar genetic stock, people that were all from colder countries in Europe and were therefore more likely to stand up to the cold climates we have in the midwest.
You can talk all that jive about genetic stock, but from what I saw, it seemed that more people ate like s***, the weather kept people inside, and it was harder to get produce. All of these are reasons, and none of them are excuses.
[ April 06, 2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
::laughing:: Is it a joke that at the bottom of the screen is a link to "obese people?"
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I don't know how much s*** you talk, I am never going to look like this, and it's not because of how I live.
Being very thin necessitates a certain bodytype, one that I don't and that no one in my family has. The cold truth is that some people have dark skin because they come from sunny climates, and some people have larger body types and more fat deposits because they come from cold climates.
I personally find that I get a lot of use out of my scandinavian heritage. I can live fairly comfortably with an indoor temperature of 60. I'm not often cold when others around me complain of it. I also have more muscle than many of the men around me.
I hope you understand how ridiculous it is to deny the genetic portion of weight composition.
LadyDove- I love how when you go to the link, the women on the page aren't even nearly obese, and I doubt that most of them are even overweight.
[ April 06, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Irami, cold changes the metabolism a lot, and it *does* change the body type across the continent. People are often thinner in AZ and CA than in the midwest because the warmer weather causes major differences in metabolism. If it is cold, your body goes into "hibernation" mode and tries to store more fat to keep warm. And it directly affects your activity levels too. And peoples bodies change to accomodate the difference. It isn't unhealthy, its the way we evolved to live in cold climates. In AZ people are thin because the less fat you have the cooler your body stays.
AJ (and I've lived in all three places...)
[ April 06, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The further from the equator you are, the less sunlight you get and thus you are more prone to craving carbs for the insulin/seratonin/melatonin cycle. On that same note, "freshman forty" could be related to the sleep deprivation college students subject themselves too.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My google ad at the bottom of the page was:
quote: Overweight women: Date Hundreds of Thousands of Plus-Size Singles, Admirers.
Google as yenta o_O
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The "freshman forty," that's a regional difference. At Cal, it was the freshman fifteen, and that was a joke.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
There is a reason why the rest of the country views CA as a bunch of stuck up beautiful people and health nut wackos, "fruits, flakes and nuts" Sadly many of the stereotypes of my native state are actually true. I realize how many of my friends in CA had various eating disorders, actually more guys than girls, and it makes me sad. Particularly because it was the most attractive people that never thought they were good enough.
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*sighs*
*counts to 100*
*bites tounge*
*manages not to speak*
*sighs*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I remember seeing Ariel Sharon, Dick Cheney, and another world leader with a Sharon sized belly at conference, and I remember thinking, "These fat guys are going to go into a room and divvy up the world."
As long as you recognize your own prejudice, Irami, you can start dealing with it. (FWIW, it was the "freshman fifteen" when I was in college in Ohio, too. I'd never even heard of a "freshman forty.")
[ April 06, 2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
With me it was called the First-year fifteen, but I actually gained 25 pounds.
Probably 20 of it was muscle mass - I weighed 125 when I went to school and I was just about 6'.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I think MT misspoke. I've never heard it referred to the fresman forty either.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It was the Freshman Fifteen when I was in school, but this new phrase might shed light on exactly why doctors are now concerned with the epidemic of obesity in America.
-Trevor
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami's argument and thesis falls apart if he doesn't push everything to the extremes. That tells you something.
I have never heard of the freshman forty, but I have heard of the freshman fifteen.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Probably 20 of it was muscle mass - I weighed 125 when I went to school and I was just about 6'.
If you are 6' feet tall and 125 pounds, I imagine that you can put on 50 pounds and your body would probably thank you for it.
Kat,
I didn't know I had a thesis and an argument, but if I had one, it would be too many people are obese owing to their poor habits, choices, and priorities, and some people should feel bad about their size, owing to their poor habits, choices, and priorities, and be motivated to do something about it.
I imagine my feeling is akin to the anxiousness Mrs.M feels anytime she sees someone wearing white shoes in December. _______
As an aside, personal responsibility isn't just for poor inner city kids. The same principles I'm trying to get kids to appreciate would do well in helping out obese America. The same part of me that wonders what went wrong when I see a 15 year old who can't read, wonders what went wrong when I see a 40 year old who is obese.
[ April 06, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami: You are conveniently leaving out the uglier parts of what you have said, which includes that running a business is undignified and inhumane, that people wearing suits are dangerous, that being overweight is a sign of a degenerate moral character, and that white people are automatically not to be trusted.
The underlying theme is that a life that differs from yours - deliberately low income, devotion to looks and your body, purposefully placing sharp criticism to a theoretical ideal above caring for other people - is morally suspect.
[ April 06, 2005, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I've read only the first page, I'm in my comp science lab so i can't read it all so I'll say this. Being a lightly over wieght and big boned person I agree with any effort that takes the pressure off of me. However I do agree with health excersise and out door activities to be generally healthy. I'm helping my friends to form our schools new LARP club my char will be a Samurai, I intend to lose 20 pounds by next semester so I can get over my shyness and get a girlfriend.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:You are conveniently leaving out the uglier parts of what you have said, which includes that running a business is undignified and inhumane, that people wearing suits are dangerous, that being overweight is a sign of a degenerate moral character, and that white people are automatically not to be trusted.
I'm not going to say that I stand by this sentence, but in a general sense, it's not inaccurate. Each clause has qualifiers, of course, but the one about white people not to be automatically trusted is darn near perfect. Nobody should be automatically trusted, and for the most part, nobody else is.
[ April 06, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm not going to say that I stand by this sentence, but in a general sense, it's not inaccurate.
Translation: "Yes, that's all true, but I don't want to accountable for it."
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
But the sentence above doesn't say that white people are not to be automatically trusted, it says that white people are automatically not to be trusted, a semantic difference that has a large impact.
Would you or anyone you know take offense if I said that black people were automatically not to be trusted? Or native american? Or asian? I think your logic is completely ridiculous and hypocritical.
[ April 06, 2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Then it's a good thing that's the clause I picked to clarify. Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
The way you phrased it above really didn't seem like clarifying. I apologize if I mistook your speech.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Less like clarifying than glorifying it.
Irami, when people judge you, they're racist? But you get a free pass to judge everyone??? Whatever, dude...nice consistency there. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, when people judge you, they're racist?
The funny thing is, I've called people fat, evil, shameful, guilty, sinister, jackasses, worthless,and any number of contemptuous epithets, but I don't think I've ever called anyone a racist and meant it as a pejorative. People have assumed I have, despite everything I've ever said to the opposite.
If anyone had ever thought to ask, I'd be perfectly willing to say that there is a time and a place to judge solely based on race. For scientific reasons, "Should I wear a 15 sunblock or a 45 sunblock"? or for sociological reasons, as there are huge differences in priorities, it almost goes down to the phenomenological level, that are inspired by disparate racial legacies and narratives. I don't know why some white people are so intent on being stupidly color-blind that they can't see what's in their face. Howard Dean was right about the hotel staff at the RNC. Chris Rock was right about the Oscars, and to an extent, OSC was right when he said:
quote:"When black people know they're the majority of the audience, they don't follow all those white-people rules about prim audience behavior...It's like going to church. In African-American culture, most folks don't think that church is about sitting silently while the preacher edifies them and the choir sings. They answer the preacher all the time; they sing along or move to the music.
It only makes sense that they respond to movies the same way -- out loud, exuberantly. American blacks don't show respect by being silent -- they show love by opening up their hearts and making noise about it.
Don't think for a minute that when Tyler Perry wrote Diary and Darren Grant directed it that they weren't absolutely counting on the audience being part of the show.
I know there are plenty of white folks who would absolutely love this movie -- but who probably won't go because it makes them uncomfortable to be the only white people in a huge, enthusiastic crowd of blacks.
This is not racism per se, it's human nature. Whenever you feel yourself to be in a minority, it makes you edgy and less comfortable.[Irami's take: I don't think this is human nature. I think it's the result of having a society that worships and abuses the slim virtues of majority rule. If we could trust people to abide by a sense of decency rather glorifying the institutionalized rape of 49% or fewer, this wouldn't be an issue.]
The thing to remember is, that's how black people feel all the time when they are out in the white-dominated world. If they can handle it, so can you.
Is that racist, sure. Is it an appropriate observation. It should be taken seriously. It should be thought about. I don't know if I wholly agree, but I think it's a fine stab.
For example, there was an article in the nytimes on how Jews and black women are slow to vote for the death penalty, and so prosecution lawyers kick them off of the jury, and you know what, defense lawyers get rid of WASPs with the same vigor. Is that racist? Sure. Is it perfectly appropriate? You bet.
If anybody wants to understand my complicated views on racial profiling, start another thread.
[ April 06, 2005, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Blah. I'm sick of this. I wonder if this would be a good time to say that whenever I see this thread, I think about a dobie for it.
"New Pubic Attitudes for Old" with a link detailing the changing attitudes on pubic grooming over the years.
But then I realize it would be all inappropriate.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Ryuko--My sweet girl, I have always thought you were the most beutiful creation I have ever seen or made.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Ryuko's Mom!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Oh wow, is it really Ryuko's mom??
Welcome!!
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
It is really her Mom---Aint I lucky! Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Hehe, awesome!! Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Thanx for the instant welcome every one!
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Welcome welcome Aunty Eem! You might want to start your own "Hi, I'm new here, and thought I'd introduce myself" thread. If you want to. You're still welcome either way. Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Thanx, quidscribis, for the advice I am very new at this. Ryuko has been bugging me for years, it seems, to join the forum.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Good evening, ma'am.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
And I was TOTALLY right about that.
Also: Love you, mom.
[ April 07, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Suuuure you were.
Just remember, when dinner isn't made because she is posting on Hatrack, it is all YOUR fault.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
That's what crock pots are for. To cook for you while you post.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pfft. Ryuko's a capable young lady.
If dinner's not made because her mom's posting on Hatrack, I'm sure she will make dinner.
. . . unless she's also busy posting on Hatrack . . .
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:I don't think I've ever called anyone a racist and meant it as a pejorative.
Irami
quote: Legacy admits weren't enough, white people needed to put in a legacy section on the test. I'm not convinced either test [the old SAT or the new SAT] tests more than ones willingness to jump through the Man's hoops, the Jim Crow excuses are what's ridiculous.
Irami, on the Tricknology thread, complaining about bias for whites, and against blacks and asians. True, you never used the word 'racist' on that thread. But you might as well have.
And you seem very judgemental to me, certainly on this thread.
But I agree that my comment above was unfair in that your attitude towards racism is complex and nuanced, and I couldn't find a post where you called anyone racist. So I am sorry. I almost deleted my post right after I made it, then someone quoted it, so I left it. Then the quoter deleted theirs! Oh well.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think the new SAT idioms section is a tool devised by white people too mitigate the butt-whooping asians are giving them on the SAT. In this case, racism is merely the vehicle for them to express their tendency toward a-hole.
I figured out my problem with "on the contrary" v. "to the contrary." I was tutoring someone on the test, and I missed the question, and I couldn't figure out why. And it bugged me. Well, the answer is "on the contrary," despite my telling the kid an answer to the contrary.
So why are both of them on my tongue, "on the contrary" is an idiom born from Doyle's Sherlock homles, and "to the contrary" is perfectly adequate English, but since this is an idioms section, they wanted the student to have been touched by Doyle's writing. Give me all of the excuses you want about how a passing familiarity with a Doyle coined idiom is appropriate for the SAT, and I'll still say that it's a bunch of bull, devised by white people because they were tired watching the increasing tide of high-scoring immigrants surpass their kids.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kids don't read Sherlock Holmes these days anyway. I'm amazed they still had it in the kids section (even if I had to blow the dust off of it to read it) considering the amount of drug usage in that book.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:devised by white people because they were tired watching the increasing tide of high-scoring immigrants surpass their kids.
The really amazing part of all this? You seem to actually believe white kids will know the difference.
Come on, Irami. This is just bad logic. Or a martyr complex.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
You guys are both wrong. My mom doesn't cook dinner, my dad does. We all win!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You see, Scott, all white kids go to a secret room where men in suits give them the answers and make them promise to share with anybody black.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I would have said "to the contrary" most likely. Of course, now that I've read them both they both sound right. I'll have to wait and catch myself in casual converation to see which pops out of my mouth.
I also don't like the weighting of the verbal (though this is the first I've heard of it) and I think an Idiom section of the test is nonsense.
But then, I'm a math and science girl. A weighting of Verbal and an Idiot section of the test would have really messed up my score.
Good thing I only ever took the ACT...
Wait.. come to think of it... Was that why there were so many more Verbal sections on the GRE than Math and Analysis?????? Aren't they done by the same people???
Pix
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm pretty sure I'd have said on the contrary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Warning: What follows is speculation
"On the contrary" follows the same language pattern as "on the other hand". Add "side" to the end of the phrase, and you can see why it reads that way. An antithecal statement contradicts the thesis said before, so it is on the contrary side.
---------
Comfort with idioms come from, and almost exclusively from, reading everything, and a wide variety of everything. All those sections - idioms, vocabulary, reading comprehension - those all measure how much someone reads and how much they pay attention when they do.
---------------
But I've noticed that Irami has pulled his time-honored of, when backed into a corner and proven wrong, slinging around reasons why everyone but him is guilty.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Kids don't read Sherlock Holmes these days anyway. I'm amazed they still had it in the kids section (even if I had to blow the dust off of it to read it) considering the amount of drug usage in that book.
AJ, that's kind of the issue. Kids don't read Holmes like they used to. White kids or black kids, but the phrase, "On the contrary, my dear Watson," is common currency in institutionally white circles because there was a time when exclusively white kids did read Holmes, so even if Buffy and Biff are familiar with the idiom because they heard their uncle use it while ribbing their dad or they heard Chandler use it while ribbing Joey on an episode of Friends, that's still one more question they are going to get right that Pei and Vijay are going to miss for a stupid reason.
Scott,
quote: The really amazing part of all this? You seem to actually believe white kids will know the difference.
Yes. There is a huge "achievement" gap that manifests around fourth grade for this exact issue.
kat/Javert/Lady Jane/FriscoProofKatAlias,
quote:But I've noticed that Irami has pulled his time-honored of, when backed into a corner and proven wrong, slinging around reasons why everyone but him is guilty.
I thought morbo raised the issue of why I think everyone but me is guilty.
________ Ward Churchill got in a lot of trouble for calling the inhabitants of the trade center "little Eichmanns." I may not agree with his characterization of those particular people in the trade center, but I sympathize with his reasons and I think that Eichmanns abound, willfully ignorant while sloppily brandishing their privilege and "just following orders."
[ April 07, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whereas you're perfectly aware of your own privilege, yes? Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You are right, Tom, I misspoke. But I do think I'm more aware than most, though, and I do believe that that quality is a virtue. I think think a small cadre of white people proposed this section because they couldn't stand the increasing number of immigrants dominating a "merit" based test, and a huge swath of white people decided fall in step and make excuses for the obvious impropriety in the test.
I don't mind the small cadre. That they exist isn't a big deal, that they are in positions to decide what "merit" is isn't a big deal, but I'm laying blame and shame upon people who are making excuses to accept this standard.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've never heard anyone say "on the contrary" out loud. My family is reasonably educated - mostly bachelor's degress, relatives a few degrees out have doctorates, but on my mother's side, only my aunt graduated from college.
Buffy and Biff? Are your theoretical white kids wearing tennis whites and ordering Jeeves to bring the Rolls around after lunch?
You don't have any moral standing from which to preach, Irami.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:, "On the contrary, my dear Watson," is common currency in institutionally white circles
a) you got the euphemism wrong. It's "Elementary my dear Watson" b) The only person I've ever heard use it in actual speech is myself, one of the only people I've ever known IRL, who actually *read* Arthur Conan Doyle. My white people could and did look askance at me for saying it, cause they didn't get it either.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Buffy and Biff? Are your theoretical white kids wearing tennis whites and ordering Jeeves to bring the Rolls around after lunch?
Yep.
AJ,
I got the idiom wrong.
quote:The only person I've ever heard use it in actual speech is myself, one of the only people I've ever known IRL, who actually *read* Arthur Conan Doyle.
Who were you talking to when you said it?
[ April 07, 2005, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This thread makes me, as an ethnic hodgepodge who looks white [edit: and who is also, through no fault of his own, skinny as a toothpick], feel decidedly weird.
Do I declare my ethnicity as "other" on the government forms, or not? I'm certainly part caucasian and I look like I'm all caucasian, lips excepted.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...you know, I don't think Holmes ever actually said, "It's elementary, my daer Watson." It's the quote that you hear all the time, but I think it's like "Play it again, Sam." It's a conglomeration of a few other quotes, but was never said verbatim.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Incidentally, my black-cuban boyfriend, while I have no idea whether he's actually read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, has most certainly read more Plato and Machievelli than I have, and he read it in high school, before he became a National Merit Scholar. I *know* at least a dozen Black "National Achievement" scholars, who were extremely pissed that they were given the "achievement" award because that has been designated for minorities. Because they deserved the straight "National Merit Scholarhship" based on their test scores. They kicked the white kids butts, and still got the scholarship with the affirmative action name.
So don't tell me blacks can't do as well as whites on SATs. The black girl across the hall from me who came from the football mecca of Jenks, Oklahoma still managed to get a 1600.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
AJ, you feel good refuting the argument you put in my mouth? Make you feel strong? Or even right? If you want another black statistic for your argument that I didn't make, it's safe to say that I've read more Plato and Machiavelli than most people on this largely white board. But I'm an outlier for quite a few reasons, the least of which is that I don't think it's a coincidence and that one of my parents and your BF's parents were immigrants.
You know, all this should really go on the Tricknology Thread.
This thread used to concern when it's appropriate to make pudgy people feel better about their pudginess.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Katie I believe it was actually in the books, but it was mixed in with a lot of stilted english english. It's in the one where the snake gets planted, and then there's the Left Handed Gang.
I'm still flabbergasted that no one mentions Sherlock Holmes' little cocaine habit at all.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No it just frustrates me, that you don't give your own race any credit, at all, for anything.
You seem to be trying to perpetuate the helpless mythology that you want to believe.
I'm not denying that there are racial inequalities, and issues. But you ignore the large part of the minority population that *has* been steadily improving their living conditions and education as if they are inconsequential. When they aren't. (Including the non-immigrant population)
I thought it was an injustice that some of my friends got the "Achievment" rather than the "Merit" scholarship. But the semantics don't change the facts which were that they kicked 99.99% of the white populations butt at the SAT, even if they lived in a ghetto in Houston or the sticks of Oklahoma. I don't believe the game is actually rigged to keep blacks out of college or they wouldn't have been there.
AJ
[ April 07, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "on the contrary" in my life, and I was a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, growing up.
Then again, people who can't figure out what it means by context don't deserve to "pass" the SAT.
------
And I'm going to break your heart now, Irami.
quote: I think think a small cadre of white people proposed this section because they couldn't stand the increasing number of immigrants dominating a "merit" based test.
Nope. Speaking as someone who was working for the National Council of Teachers of English at the time these changes were proposed and discussed, I can say with absolute authority that the major drive to dumb down the SAT -- particularly removing the analogy section and adding useless idioms -- was to improve black and hispanic scores, given that it was assumed that both groups were unfamiliar with the concept of analogies, did poorly with straight vocabulary, and were more likely to have been exposed to idiom.
The goal was not to bring the Asians down to the level of Caucasians, Irami; it was, quite specifically -- and I'm speaking here as somebody who finds the changes ridiculous, and argued against them when I had the chance -- to bring blacks and hispanics up to that level.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Me too. We had a collection in the house and I've read everything. Come to think of it, I think I swiped it. Now *I* have a collection in my house.
I'm going to use "on the contrary" three times the next Hatrack gathering.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I thought it was an injustice that some of my friends got the "Achievment" rather than the "Merit" scholarship. But the semantics don't change the facts which were that they kicked 99.99% of the white populations butt at the SAT, even if they lived in a ghetto in Houston or the sticks of Oklahoma.
Hence, the introduction of the idioms section.
quote:I don't believe the game is actually rigged to keep blacks out of college or they wouldn't have been there.
With the idioms, I think target was first generation Asians and Indians. As to the rest of the sentence, I don't know if that's the case. ________
Tom, I believe you. I also think someone sold you a bill of goods. This may have started out among one group concerning blacks and hispanics, but it ended with its sights on asians and indian immigrants.
[ April 07, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think the idom section will hurt underpriveledged whites as much if not more than any minority.
I'm extremely glad I took the test before they added the essay section, because that would have weeded me out for sure.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
AJ, I agree, to an extent. The main beneficiaries of the idiom and essay sections are privileged whites, the ones threatened by incoming asians and Indian immigrants.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The problem, Irami, is that you have no evidence for that opinion.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It doesn't hurt the Indian immigrants. because large majority of the ones who would take the SAT in the first place are highly educated, in a British-style education system.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Asians read, right? Phrases like "on the contrary" aren't learned in casual conversation.
[ April 07, 2005, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I also think someone sold you a bill of goods. This may have started out among one group concerning blacks and hispanics, but it ended with its sights on asians and indian immigrants.
I'm interested, Irami, in why you think you know this for a fact, when Tom doesn't believe it to be so and he worked there. I also don't think of Tom as a stupid person that could so easily have the wool pulled over his eyes.
Do you think you just see things so much better than others? Is it because you're so much smarter than Tom and me and everyone else? Or is it Tom's white ethnicity that makes him unable to comprehend the complexities of the vast conspiracy of the SAT?
I guess I'm asking - do you not see how arrogant, condescending, and completely vile you sound sometimes? Or do you just not care?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: The Asians read, right? Phrases like "on the contrary" aren't learned in casual conversation.
On the contrary. I use phrases like that all the time no matter what you may think to the contrary.
Pix
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Belle,
quote:I'm interested, Irami, in why you think you know this for a fact, when Tom doesn't believe it to be so and he worked there. I also don't think of Tom as a stupid person that could so easily have the wool pulled over his eyes.
I don't speak in terms of facts. Is it so hard to believe that, at some point in the process, the agenda got subverted, maybe at a point later than Tom's involvement? I've been hustled so many times, in so many ways, for so many reasons, that I wouldn't be surprised at all. I find this terribly ironic that anyone in this nation disbelieves that this could be the case considering that we went to war on being sold a bill of goods. Do you want to know what I think happened. A drive started with good intentions, got perverted, and ended with idioms, and there weren't enough checks in the system to stop it.
quote:I guess I'm asking - do you not see how arrogant, condescending, and completely vile you sound sometimes? Or do you just not care?
Belle, I imagine it's about as arrogant, condescending, and completely vile you sound to me, on occasion. What's worse is that your views have the added emphasis of being popular and fashionable. For most of my life, I've been keeping quiet about it, but then I realized that 1) it gives me indigestion, 2) I think it's what the bad people want, so I'm going to keep yapping as I see it.
And lastly, does it really matter how arrogant, condescending, and completely vile the argument is, if it's right? Here is my question to you. You don't need to marshall up any statistics, feel free to answer with your gut, does including an idiom section sound appropriate to you for the SAT?
For the record, I don't mind an essay section. Depending on how it's graded, it could work. Admittedly, I would probably scored atrociously at the time, but it's one of those things that I should have been able to do, even if I couldn't. But of all of the things in the world, testing ones exposure to idioms strikes me as horribly petty.
AJ,
quote:It doesn't hurt the Indian immigrants. because a large majority of the ones who would take the SAT in the first place are highly educated, in a British-style education system.
I don't know if that's true. I see where you are coming from, but I'm of the opinion that British english taught as a second language in india is different from idiomatic British english which is different from idiomatic American English.
Storm Saxon,
quote:The problem, Irami, is that you have no evidence for that opinion.
I have two eyes and two ears, some situations don't give themselves to evidence.
[ April 07, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't understand how you can argue with Tom, Irami. He has given a reason for his judgements on the SAT-- you have not.
That's just . . .poor, and you know it. Where is your sense of excellence? I want to discover if you are just spouting rhetoric you've heard from someone else, or if your ideas are well defined, sharpened, extensive, SOLIDLY your own through research and thought.
If we believe Tom, we believe that he has personal knowledge of the subject. His position is as tenous as our trust in him. Nevertheless, you've given zilch other than your opinion-- and what is there that we can point to and say, 'Thus, the reason?'
There isn't.
Give me a reason to give your ideas merit, Irami.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The Pixiest's last post is a thing of beauty! I was trying to figure out how to demonstrate that the two phrases have different meanings, and would be used in different contexts. But I was beaten to the punch!
quote: Hmm...you know, I don't think Holmes ever actually said, "It's elementary, my dear Watson." It's the quote that you hear all the time, but I think it's like "Play it again, Sam." It's a conglomeration of a few other quotes, but was never said verbatim.
quote: Katie I believe it was actually in the books, but it was mixed in with a lot of stilted english english.
quote: I'm still flabbergasted that no one mentions Sherlock Holmes' little cocaine habit at all.
I didn't pick up on it (isn't it fairly subtle in most of the books?) until I saw The Seven Percent Solution. I guess I was 16 at that con, and I'd been reading Doyle for several years by that point.
I use both "to the contrary" and "on the contrary" in normal conversation. But don't go by me -- my SIL says I'm the only person she's ever heard use the word "hence" in everyday conversation. *grin*
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
All I can say about Holmes' cocaine habit is that, well...it's just WEIRD. [insert comment about the War on Drugs here] I think of it as a sort of cultural artifact of changing attitudes on drug use. First heard about it in a comic book, of all places.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
quote: who came from the football mecca of Jenks, Oklahoma
HA!! As an aside, this is just up the road from me. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scott, I'll put it too you? "You don't need to marshal up any statistics, feel free to answer with your gut, does including an idiom section sound appropriate to you for the SAT?"
At this stage, who is arguing for an idioms section and why? Who is arguing strenuously against it? I, personally, got used to the analogy section, I wasn't in love with it, but the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, and I liked the devil I had in the analogy section. _________
A few years ago, the president at the University of California started getting complaints from donors about the test, and he realized that he didn't know a few of the analogies tested, and he threatened to pull the University of California from the test and that's when the talk began concerning changing the SAT, because of the University of California carries such a big stick. (A significant number of midwest schools use the ACT, and the UC system is a huge SAT cash cow.) Now Asian Americans are overrepresented at the University of California by some two hundred and fifty percent, and that's not evenly balanced across the system. Berkeley, UCLA, ebb and flow at about over forty three to forty nine percent Asian, and Irvine is over fifty percent, and white people go to Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara. (I thought it was cool. I went to high school in orange county, and by the time I got to college, I was tired of being surrounded by white people. They went to Santa Barbara, I went to Berkeley, everything was cool.)
You only need to take two steps on campus to hear white people start griping about the sheer number of asians, and it was obvious that a pure calculus of GPA and SAT scores would benefit asian californians, (link) post affirmative action, as an unintended consequence.
So here is my read, the two best public universities in the state of California, and the US by extension, could not find a way to admit enough blacks, whites, or latinos, Atkinson got tough with the SAT, and while it took a few years, they eventually drew up a new test. It's going to take a few years to crunch the data, but I can tell you right now, I don't think it's going to help blacks and latinos a lick. To tell the truth, I understood analogies, and I've been saying for ten years that verbal section is a glorified vocabulary test, but through flash cards and perspiration, you can study for a vocabulary test, even you aren't exposed culturally to a large breadth of relevant vocabulary. Idioms are a different beast.
We'll find out next year, but I'll prognosticate that asian scores take a dip, and everyone else stays steady, resulting in a reversal of the trend at the top two schools, and a flood of new white students at Berkeley and UCLA. I don't know anything about the Ivy League schools, but I imagine that they are under similar circumstances, possibily more so because they have staggeringly white alumni to please, and get money from, and I've served on the Foundation, I know that it's not fortuitous for donors to come back and see students who don't look like they did.
As an aside, I heard something similar happened to Jews in the 60s and 70s, but I just remember Joseph Heller saying this in an interview before he died, and I didn't really catch it.
[ April 08, 2005, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: quote:It doesn't hurt the Indian immigrants. because a large majority of the ones who would take the SAT in the first place are highly educated, in a British-style education system.
I don't know if that's true. I see where you are coming from, but I'm of the opinion that British english taught as a second language in india is different from idiomatic British english which is different from idiomatic American English.
India has a British-style education system, as does Sri Lanka. English is not taught in all schools - it depends on the area - village schools are less likely to have the necessary resources to add English to the curriculum as village people are much poorer. But the Indian immigrants that make it to North America tend to be from richer (relatively speaking) families anyway, so yes, they likely would have learned English at school.
Where it's taught, they use British English with British spelling. Pronunciation is Indianized, accents and all, of course. Even in the Hindi movies, English is interspersed with the Hindi dialogue.
One thing to keep in mind about India is that there are many languages in use in the country. Hindi and English are both used as bridge languages. As in Sri Lanka, English is used by big business, and if you want to work your way up the corporate ladder or work in any position that deals with foreigners, you'd better know English.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami--
Where's the proof of a secret council of white men whose intention is to make the SAT harder for minorities and easier for white kids? The closest thing you've got is Liddy's diatribe against Atkinson. And is that G. Gordon Liddy that wrote it? My, my! What strange bedfellows. . . And the article directly contradicts the position of your FindArticle link-- which proposes that Atkinson did what he did to NOT be racist. . .
It is hard for me to believe that the process was corrupted, and you have STILL provided no proof to that effect.
Your comment earlier about the acheivement gap was well taken. Why do you believe there is an acheivement gap?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't support including an idiom section on the SAT, as I think that it tips the balance way too far toward people who grew up speaking American Standard English in the home. I don't think that this section was included on the test as part of some plot to keep Asians out of US Universities; I find Tom's version of things to be much more plausible than Irami's. Nonetheless, I think that Irami is right in the dampening effect it will have on the SAT scores of *any* students who didn't grow up with American Standard being spoken in the home, with non-native English speakers being hit hardest.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, I imagine it's about as arrogant, condescending, and completely vile you sound to me, on occasion. What's worse is that your views have the added emphasis of being popular and fashionable.
What particular views of mine do you find to be vile, condescending and arrogant?
It must be about other subjects, because I know I haven't spoken out in favor of the idioms on the SAT. In fact, I'm not really questioning your view, but the way you've presented it. It is not your view that I find distasteful, it is the way you speak to and about others.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Wow Irami. So you assume that a person is overweight because they choose to be? Hmm. Well I guess I'll just tell that one to my mom who is overweight because of years of medication needed to keep her alive that packed on the pounds. She is allergic to too many foods to list here. She eats things that are considered healthy and does not eat excessive amounts. Yet she doesn't loose weight because of the years of medication and two mastectomies for breast cancer. Her weight is a direct result of circumstances outside her control. She's a pretty awesome lady considering the trials she's gone through. I'm glad I'm related to her and not you though. What a sad life to assume that a person's weight is due to character flaws. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Welcome to the eternal argument, Wendy.
-Trevor
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Your comment earlier about the acheivement gap was well taken. Why do you believe there is an acheivement gap?
Here is my opinion. Large swaths of the curriculum should be jettisoned. Most of the math and science should go the way of wood shop or any other trade. Most of everything after long division and a little algerbra is inane, and any more science than four elements, earth, fire, water, and air borders on superfluous. My parents couldn't help me past 6th grade science and math, their parents didn't know any more, and while I know science and math, I wish I would have spent that time learning to read, write, and think in english better.
My read is that WASPs have loaded the curriculum with things they know, and forgot that this information, while useful depending on you trade, is not "core."
Immigrants come to succeed in the America-- if that meant making card castles, they would make the highest damn card castles in the land-- and black americans and latinos have a different relationship with American institutions. The core curriculum is neither filled with things we happen to know, nor things we especially want to learn, nor are we as eager as immigrants to jump wasp hoops just because.
The result is that too often black kids and families can't make a strong argument for education and throw out the baby with bath water. There are complications, as always, because we are talking about kids being taught subjects the parents don't know or need, and being told a child is behind because he/she doesn't know about ohms and the right hand rule when the parent doesn't know about ohms and the right hand rule is tough business.
When I tell kids that education will be the light in their life. I'm not talking about knowing the difference between carpals and tarsals. I'm talking about narratives. You don't need to know about the chemical structure of fat to adjust your diet, one story about Napolean and gout will set a thinking person going. You don't need an FDA test to tell you that smoking is bad for you, all you need to do is talk to a smoker and listen to a cough or read a story about a smoker, and that's enough to send a thinking person going, but instead of thinking, we're big on teaching specific information.
Now I know that engineers and scientists may get upset concerning my thoughts on this issue, but the business of education concerns thinking, speaking, and make decisions every day, and only on occasion are these decisions based on science, the important ones concern thinking about stories and the world, and understanding the sense of the words we use to tell them.
Hannah Arendt, a woman with whom I am quite taken despite her being dead for twenty years, wrote in a book of letters to a friend the late sixties about how the American Negro doesn't want to lower or raise the standards with respect to these schools, rather, they want to fundamentally change the institutions, something much more radical. I read the letter last week, as always, I'm impressed with her insight. I think she is right. I don't want to lower standards. I don't think I'm going to be truly happy until the institution rights itself. ________
As to the SAT: The problem is the SAT was that it had to divide students, and the divisions seemed arbitrary. The solution to the problem seems equally arbitrary, except it gets rid of the pesky high-achievement immigrant problem. Maybe it's a coincidence, but everytime the dice are rolled, it always comes out this way, and how many times does it have to happen before someone think that maybe the dice are weighted.
[ April 11, 2005, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami- I agree that a manager of a business will never need to know the chemical formula for hydrosulfuric acid. I agree that an artist may never need to know trigonometry. I agree that computer training belongs more wholly at the vocational center than at the main school campus.
But I don't see a vast white-wing conspiracy keeping minorities from acheiving their educational goals.
I don't see the weighted die. I'd like to think that if you picked them up, rattled them under my nose, I'd be able to say, 'Oh, hey, man, we can't play with those.' But you've done nothing but tell me that somewhere out there, some white guys are playing shady craps.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The Two Cultures are alive and well--article about C.P. Snow's Two Cultures, and the dearth of science and technical backgrounds among British elite.
quote: Most of everything after long division and a little algerbra is inane, and any more science than four elements, earth, fire, water, and air borders on superfluous.
Irami. Spoken like an English major.
Instead you want to focus on narratives. How can you make competent decisions in the real world without even a basic understanding of math and science, two of the most sucessful and penetrating ways of looking at the world?
You aren't kidding when you say you want to fundementally, radically change education, Irami. From the article:
quote: Yet the scientific voice is surprisingly marginal to the public discussion of many, if not all, of these issues. Too often in such debates, feet-on-the-ground rationality plays a distant second fiddle to modish attitudinising and "blue skies" thinking. In some debates it is the anti-scientific voice that holds the stage and commands most attention.
All too true. And abandoning math and science education will help this how?? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now I know that engineers and scientists may get upset concerning my thoughts on this issue, but the business of education concerns thinking, speaking, and make decisions every day, and only on occasion are these decisions based on science, the important ones concern thinking about stories and the world, and understanding the sense of the words we use to tell them.
I submit that there is plenty of time during the school day to teach science, math, english, and philosophy. Certainly, I managed to learn all of the above -- and I consider that the solid grounding in these subjects that I received made me a better person, even though it's the case that very little of any of these concepts help me in my career today.
I submit, furthermore, that someone who merely knows english and philosophy is considerably less of a "complete" person than someone who knows just as much english and philosophy but also happens to know physics and chemistry.
The issue is not that these subjects are not available; it's that not all students take advantage of what is made available to them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Additionally, regardless of whether the average adult actually needs to know the formula for hydrosulfuric acid (and I would submit that it's certainly useful for them to at least vaguely recall that there is such a thing, especially if acid rain is under discussion) or trig (which I would think an artist absolutely would find useful, for such things as perspective), there are skills, techniques, and mindsets that come from learning math and science.
And those every adult needs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Moreover, I contend that a basic understanding of math (especially statistics), science, and economics is necessary for one to participate intelligently in the political process. These aren't all that is necessary, but these are the ones you seem to want to eliminate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, have you read Innumeracy? There are considerable consequences to not knowing math, even for artists and non-engineers.
Description:
quote:Why do even well-educated people understand so little about mathematics? And what are the costs of our innumeracy? John Allen Paulos, in his celebrated bestseller first published in 1988, argues that our inability to deal rationally with very large numbers and the probabilities associated with them results in misinformed governmental policies, confused personal decisions, and an increased susceptibility to pseudoscience of all kinds. Innumeracy lets us know what we're missing, and how we can do something about it.
It looks like your plan, like your plan so often is, is to condemn and jettison everything you are not good at.
I know you'd like a world where the things you are not good at are not necessary, but why do you want to drag everyone else down on purpose? Black kids not keeping up in math? Jettison math! Talk about dumbing down - that wouldn't help anyone, except falsely inflate a few self esteems.
[ April 11, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
kat,
quote:It looks like your plan, like your plan so often is, is to condemn and jettison everything you are not good at.
I've proved to be a strong math and science student, and a shameful english and history student. I'm saying that I was wrong, and would have better served myself if I had spent more energy in my youth revering language and art.
From Paulos:
quote:I'm distressed by a society which depends so completely on mathematics and science and yet seems to indifferent to the innumeracy and scientific illiteracy of so many of its citizens.
This is a strange argument, for a few reasons. If our society depends on math and our citizens are math illiterate, it seems as though our society doesn't depend on the good opinions of our citizens. There is a sense in which this understanding of our society belies humanity.
Dag,
quote: I contend that a basic understanding of math (especially statistics), science, and economics is necessary for one to participate intelligently in the political process. These aren't all that is necessary, but these are the ones you seem to want to eliminate.
I think one needs a conceptual understanding of statistics and an eye for fallacy, all of which Scopatz could teach a 17 year old in a long weekend. By the way, when you say "participate intelligently," do you mean participate scientifically, because that's often code for having efficiency as ones guide post in all decisions.
rivka,
quote:there are skills, techniques, and mindsets that come from learning math and science.
That's where the danger begins. Science rests on a positive metaphysical understanding of the world, mainly, that everything important is intelligible through science.(The judeo-christian foundation for the primacy of science is deeper than that, owing to the world springing from the thought of God.) I do believe that there quiet a bit is intelligible through math and science, but I believe that it is over-represented in our curriculum because that which is represented in science isn't important. The result is an incredible amount of data that doesn't concern citizenship, justice, responsibility, character, courage, humility and all sorts of pesky qualities that are food for thought and belong to public education, and flow from the thoughtful concern for art and language.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most of everything after long division and a little algerbra is inane, and any more science than four elements, earth, fire, water, and air borders on superfluous. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irami. Spoken like an English major.
Instead you want to focus on narratives. How can you make competent decisions in the real world without even a basic understanding of math and science, two of the most sucessful and penetrating ways of looking at the world? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know what you get from for elements? "Why does earth fall?" "It belongs on the ground and it is merely returning to where it belongs. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what it is to be earth." "Why does fire rise?" "It belongs in the air it is merely seeking to return to where it belongs. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what it means to be fire." "Why do I go home to my wife instead of taking a mistress?" "I belong at home with my wife. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand what it is to be a husband." Belonging is everything, I'm of the opinion that understanding the nuances of belonging as at the heart of anything worth studying. I also worry that science and math, while posing as penetrating, reduce the world along inappropriate and indignified ways. Sure, science and math are common currency, but in a Wal-Mart way, by cheapening and degrading while pretending to serve. A basic level of math and science is appropriate to the core curriculum, but it should stop there, while the rest of the time is spent walking up through Great Books.
[ April 11, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Are you seriously suggesting that we teach that Aristotle was correct about "natural" and "violent" motion? *boggles*
Do you also plan to teach that before the 1940s, the world was black and white?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Define "basic."
See, Rivka, an ignorant populace is easier to decieve. If people can't count or analyze, you can convince them their lives are better, because they should be.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
quote: Do you also plan to teach that before the 1940s, the world was black and white?
That's not true.
Color happened in the thirties. But that's not as bad, even earlier, the world had no sound!!!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Math for the sake of math should stop around algebra, with enough statistics to know when a study doesn't feel right with a sense of why, everything else incorporated through the discipline, as needed by the discipline. Science, general anatomy and atomic theory, everything else should flow as needed from the narrative. If one is reading a story about consumption, adequate background is given, with resources made available for further study.
rivka,
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that we teach that Aristotle was correct about "natural" and "violent" motion?
We teach Newtonian physics for practical reasons, not because it's correct. The problem is, I think the mind understands the world in Aristotilian terms, then puts them a Newtonian dress, a rigorous understanding of which is only appropriate for specialized trades. I look at Newtonian physics the way that most people see string-theory, and calculus with the relevance most people annex to set theory. If you need to learn it for a discipline, they'll teach it to you when you learn that discipline, but it's not core.
[ April 11, 2005, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Well, it had sound, no. 6--it was just performed live, that's all. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think one needs a conceptual understanding of statistics and an eye for fallacy, all of which Scopatz could teach a 17 year old in a long weekend. By the way, when you say "participate intelligently," do you mean participate scientifically, because that's often code for having efficiency as ones guide post in all decisions.
Of course not. I'm quite vocal in about the scientific method not being the only way to ascertain truth. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's one of the foundational pillars of knowledge. People don't just disagree on what's right or wrong, they also disagree on the best way to achieve a desired effect, even when they agree that the same effect is desired. Science speaks most strongly in these situations.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What Dags said.
Irami, you are trying to convince several people who have frequently stated that science cannot solve everything, that science cannot solve everything. We agree! But that hardly means it isn't useful or necessary!
*still boggling*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Rivka,
I'm making a stronger claim. I don't even think science is useful or necessary in the way and to the extent that science is purported to be useful or necessary. And further, science seems to choke out what belongs to public education.
quote:People don't just disagree on what's right or wrong, they also disagree on the best way to achieve a desired effect, even when they agree that the same effect is desired. Science speaks most strongly in these situations.
"Best" invites efficiency as a measure, especially if we remove right and wrong from thinking. I think science comes late the party, even in decisions concerning mechanics, and too often dominates the scene because we let it and are dazzled by its percision.
[ April 11, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You want to get rid of science altogether, or just limit to the foreigners who will create everything since Americans will be unprepared?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Best" invites efficiency as a measure, especially if we remove right and wrong from thinking.
Efficiency is absolutely ONE of the measures of "best." If we can feed one hungry person per unit of resource, and find a process to feed two hungry people per unit, then we need to decided whether to use that process.
Perhaps that process causes problems A, B, and C to get worse, but causes problems X, Y, and Z to get better. Then we need to decide if the ability to feed twice as many people, combined with improvements to problems X, Y, and Z, are worth the increase in problems A, B, and C. This will require value judgments that cannot be made until after science has come into play. Because science will tell us that the process will double ability to feed people, science will tell us that A, B, and C will get worse, science will tell us that X, Y, and Z will get better, and science will help us predict how much of each effect occurs.
Efficiency is the opposite of waste. Waste can be a moral harm. Even comparing efficiency and waste requires moral thought, but it also requires science. And it requires both throughout the process.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
kat, I imagine you think the same of me, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously. Simply put, I want to increase the priority of wrestling with virtue in the core education, and decrease the priority of stoichiometry.
And more pointedly, if the core education is determined by foreigners, then something seems to already be amiss. If we are building better widgets because they are building better widgets, I'm worried that there aren't enough people concerned about why should we preoccupied with widgets in the first place?
Dag,
quote:Efficiency is the opposite of waste. Waste can be a moral harm. Even comparing efficiency and waste requires moral thought, but it also requires science. And it requires both throughout the process.
I'm worried that we have forgotten what serves what. What is specialized and what is general. What is essential and what is accidental. And again, I think this is root causes of the "achievment" gap.
[ April 11, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are deliberately twisting our words?
Education will not be dominated by foreigners, but science will.
The reason, for example, that there are not more women and minorities in science is not because recruiting fails on the graduate level, but that they fall behind while still in elementary school. If you stop teaching kids science and math and figure those who are good at it will pick it up later, it simply isn't going to happen. However, the need for scientists and engineers will not disappear, so they will hired and brought over from somewhere else.
You will not change the world by deliberating not educating children, but instead fail them by not preparing to compete in the world that is. Why do you want to set up them to fail?
Education is not an all or nothing proposition, and specialization doesn't have to happen until much later. It is possible to both build widgets and understand why you are building them. In fact, it is beholden on us as human beings to understand all aspects of the world we live in, not just the aspects we approve of.
If the only way to get attention for your subject is to eliminate all other possibilities, then you're teaching it badly.
[ April 11, 2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You do realize that what you are asking for is a religion and theology-based education. It doesn't involve God, but it is all about morality and virtue and goodness, as you define it. The reason they need to read is so they can read about virtue. The reason to study is to learn how to treat another.
Convince me that this belongs in the hands of strangers instead of parents. Take into account that not everyone has the same religion as you - how do you justify force-feeding YOUR values at the expense of skills that parents generally are not equipped to teach?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm pretty sure we already teach one set of values in school. It's the narrative or the ground on which we build step one, step two, and our elaborate technical education. The problem is that some people never buy into that ground/narrative, and never go on to step one, step two, or any of the rest. The reason people don't buy into the narrative/ground is largely because it's inadequate, and it's inadequate because the nation, except for brief periods like the civil rights movement possibly after 9/11, is slow to look carefully at how appropriate this ground is. And there is the root of the achievment gap.
quote:The reason, for example, that there are not more women and minorities in science is not because recruiting fails on the graduate level, but that they fall behind while still in elementary school.
The reason that there aren't more women and minorities in the sciences is a difference in priorities, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
quote:You do realize that what you are asking for is a religion and theology-based education. It doesn't involve God, but it is all about morality and virtue and goodness, as you define it. The reason they need to read is so they can read about virtue. The reason to study is to learn how to treat another.
I'm beginning to see that all education, at the ground, is religion/theologically based. Whether it involves God or morality or goodness, I don't believe that public education has to be incompatible with most reasonable organized religions. But aside from the evolution debate, there is a tacet white protestant ground on which everything else springs. And to extent that people are willing to adopt white protestant sympathies, it works. The result is that you have big diverse country whose habits and institutions only ring true to large segment, and everyone else is encourage to assimilate or be degraded. This works for immigrants, but for people whose American narrative doesn't show white protestant priorities in the kindest light, it poses a distinct problem.
[ April 11, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is more than one reason for any series of events, and the parcity of women and minorities in science and math has a multitude of reasons. I can't believe you want to justify and encourage shutting down options for people. That's what eliminating math a science means - fewer options.
You also did not address the rest of my post. The need for engineers and scientists and doctors will not dissapear, but Americans would be unprepared and unable to fulfill it if they follow what you plan.
We have a responsibility to educate an entire person - not the just the poet/dreamer part of them.
You are advocating a return to the curriculum and content of education in the Middle Ages. You expect to be taken seriously with that?
[ April 12, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
We are exploding with doctors. We have more would be doctors than we have medical schools. I'm not even sure that the number of engineers and scientists will go down. It's not as if the information is going away. And I'm willing to bet that the level of general scholarship will increase, owing to a cultural shift.
quote:We have a responsibility to educate an entire person - not the just the poet/dreamer part of them.
That's nice, but every new discovery is a new area for potential technique. We've decided that not every person needs to know how to fix a car. We should know how they generally work, but for the most part, it's tolerable that I don't know how to fix a car. There is an extent to which I don't need to know how medicine works. General principles are nice, but it's tolerable that I don't know how exactly the endocrine system works and what hormones go where. It's a way of thinking about the world that isn't too terribly penetrating.
quote:You are advocating a return to the curriculum and content of education in the Middle Ages. You expect to be taken seriously with that?
I'm advocating a curriculum where people are encouraged to think concerning deeply important matters, and one that's not over-burdened with specialized technique.
I think that the public ills, theft, abuse, drug use, even bankruptcy, fraud, and all manners of crimes of omission will abate with a more rigorous education in the humanities, and to the extent that scientific education serves the humanities, it's fine, but that we've gone too far and have lost our way.
[ April 12, 2005, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm advocating a curriculum where people are encouraged to think concerning deeply important matters, and one that's not over-burdened with specialized technique.
I think that the public ills, theft, abuse, drug use, even bankrupcy, fraud, and all manners of crimes of omission will abate with a more rigorous education in the humanities, and to the extent that scientific education serves the humanities, it's fine, but that we've gone too far and have lost our way.
So you're basically advocating a near-abandonment of teaching sciences in school-something that, unlike your method, has proven results-because you think that your method will be the cure for mankind's ills, from rudeness to financial ruin?
Good grief, it's appropriate tha Sherlock Holmes was mentioned here. You routinely talk like him, but you lack even fictional achievement to back up your boasts!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:We have more would be doctors than we have medical schools. I'm not even sure that the number of engineers and scientists will go down. It's not as if the information is going away. And I'm willing to bet that the level of general scholarship will increase, owing to a cultural shift.
If you stop teaching science, there will no longer be enough doctors. There are too few scientists and engineers right now to replace the ones that are retiring.
The information is not going away, but self-study is a terribly ineffective way to learn math and engineering. The idea that people will embrace entire subjects that demand dedication and distinct patterns of thinking is so ludicrous I have to wonder if you even thought about it. If that's the case, why do we have a shortage of home-grown scientists now? Graduate schools beg for PhD students, especially from populations that have been badly served and prepared.
If you want to advocate studying on your own, philosophy and history are much more likely to be sought after for self-study than math and science. There's a reason the History channel exists, but the Calculus channel does not.
Do you even believe the nonsense you are saying?
----
I love a liberal, well-rounded education. If you want to achieve a more literate population, why don't you advocate for more reading to children and less TV time? Not only would that be a proven good, you don't have to plunge American education into the dark ages to do it.
[ April 12, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We are exploding with doctors. We have more would be doctors than we have medical schools.
My understanding is that we don't have enough doctors. New doctors realize that malpractice is going to follow them around for twenty years, even if they aren't working in the medical field. That's scaring off a lot folks.
I'm sure CT or someone else can speak more intelligently on the subject of the dearth of doctors. . .
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: We have more would be doctors than we have medical schools.
Makes sense, since more than 1 medical student goes a medical school.
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
This is Irami.
I wasn't speaking clearly. The supply of medical school applicants outstrips, in a major way, number of positions available in medical schools.
The appearance of a dearth comes from the distribution of doctors, and inequalities with respect to specializations, not the national supply. Specific states and communities are in want because doctors don't want to live there, and specific specialties are in want because the physicians we train, opt for more lucrative specialities, which is their right, but we are overflowing with twenty-three year old medical school applicants.
[ April 12, 2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Quit ignoring the inconvenient parts of my posts. There are still too few scientists and engineers, and there is no evidence whatsoever that people will "pick up" calculus on their own.
And no matter how many there are now, if you stop teaching math and science, that pool of qualified applicants will evaporate.
[ April 12, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Quit ignoring the inconvenient parts of my posts. There are still too few scientists and engineers, and there is no evidence whatsoever that people will "pick up" calculus on their own.
Feeling entitled today, are you. "too few scientists and engineers" is a loaded statement. I know that there is a lot of hay being made about it, but I'm still not sure it's true, as to the "no evidence whatsoever..." My buddy Greg hadn't taken a math class since his junior year in high school and decided his senior year in college that he wanted to study math, then picked up a math degree in style. That's a little bit of evidence.
Scott, the malpractice fear is a narrative inflated for partisan reasons. It does show how much information is disseminated through narrative.
quote:The information is not going away, but self-study is a terribly ineffective way to learn math and engineering.
So we teach this information to kids because it's easy, not because it belongs. I kind of feel that way about the SAT, that we test kids on this information because it's easy to test, not because it belongs. The problem starts when we forget that that's what we are doing.
[ April 12, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Math and engineering is easy?
If it was easy then there wouldn't be so many math-phobic people around.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I didn't say it was easy, I said it was less important and should be treated as such.
I'm also of the opinion that for every person who is math phobic, there are people who are scared to open their mouth, open a book, or write a sentence, out of fear of being unfashionable or incorrect. I also think the latter class of people experience a greater indignity.
And I don't think that it's merely a technical problem, not knowing grammar or spelling, I think it's deeper than that.
[ April 12, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm sorry to say, Irami, that you've gone from ignoring logic and scientific proof, to tinfoil hats, to sitting in a corner babbling to yourself.
I just find it deliciously ironic that you're telling us that math, science, and engineering are not important while typing at a computer. (Edit: Or, I'm sorry, less important, something that all depends on your personal values/opinions.)
English majors did not build your computer, my friend.
[ April 12, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
And so the quality of my computer has become more important than the adequacy of my thought and words. I'm questioning our priorities in education, Ryuko, and there is something wrong with what I'm getting back.
They aren't my values. I'd like to think that in the scope of mankind, humanities trump engineering. But maybe I'm talking about a bygone era when a PhD signified more than a piece of technical writing on big project.
[ April 12, 2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, who do you think will make the computers? They will not appear on their own, and the need for them will not dissapear.
For the broader picture, who will build and create society so that we may comment on it and understand humanity by its aid? You say they aren't your values or what is important to you, but you are very willing to take advantage of them. Who will build them? Non-Americans, because you took away their ability. So, since you want to use it but don't want to be one of "those" people who do, you would create an immoral but necessary class of people to do the dirty work so the "good" people can sit in the ivory towers without "dirtying" their hands.
Junior year of high school is trigonometry and possibly pre-calculus. You want to take away even that preparation.
Tin foil hats are right. Are you even listening to yourself?
[ April 12, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
We've got so many builders, they are building crap just for the sake of building. (To tie it back to the thread, building for the sake of building is like eating for the sake of eating.) We make builders(eaters) first and thinkers second. I'd like the trend to reverse, and it's a difference in priorities, and I think it's a morally relevant difference.
[ April 12, 2005, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know the motivations now?
You would prefer the luddite, ninteenth-century prairie existence? I don't see you giving up your computer. Why the hypocrisy?
[ April 12, 2005, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You have forgotten one of the basic truths of sustaining a Western Civilization, Irami-or else you simply aren't mentioning it.
Maintenance of this civilization of ours requires vast surpluses of things. Food, material, machines, infrastructure, builders. You simply cannot have the things you want without millions of people skilled in the things you claim are less worthy.
So I guess they're just the peons for your own enlightenment, then.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm not saying that we should forsake the humanities, if you notice, I love the humanities. I'm saying that the key to a worthwhile education and a well-informed work force is balance. You can't say, my God! There are not enough people who can write! We have to throw out math and science to make room for the humanities. The same is true of the opposite. You have to make sure that people have the opportunity to learn both. It's their choice whether they learn it well or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It reminds me of the arguments for sustaining brothels in Victorian England. Sex was too dirty for the "good" women to do for any reason other than making children, but there was, um, demand for more than that, so the brothels were tolerated as necessary but spat upon as immoral. They were needed and condemned by one idiotic standard.
Irami still has not explained how learning math eliminates the ability to read.
[ April 12, 2005, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Jeez, Irami! What are you trying to say? Builders first is not just something the government says we should have, it's in mazlo's heirarchy! You have to have a stable environment with shelter and food before you can consider any of the higher up stuff, that's just a given!
And besides that, thinking well or being creative does not necessarily predispose one to being able to express oneself in writing. There are some people that I love and who are very creative but who can't spell. At all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To be fair, I think it's clear that he wants to spend the math/science time on something else. It's clearly some sort of humanities program, but of what sort I can't quite tell.
My big worry with it is the assumption that people can go ahead and pick up the math and science later. I'm doubtful this is true for the average person.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Ryuko, in the name of tying the theme back to the beginning of this thread.
A higher percentage of scientists and engineers and technicians may have been necessary at the beginning of civilization, but now, it's a little bit gross. One can say the same thing about the American diet. Eating everything on your plate was a virtue in those times of want, but now, with all of the super-sizing going on, there is a little bit of gluttony involved.
We've moved beyond the level of mere survival and have gone headlong to the part of living well, a stage that comes with new burdens and benefits. The problem is that we've maintained our old sensibilities. Some people have, anyway. Others have given up on the enterprise of living well, all together, rather than embrace an inadequate standard.
[ April 12, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Irami you seem not to care were any thread leads as long as you can spout your own educational bittereness. I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere with this kind of logic. Maybe, Irami, you should start your own new thread and see if you can attract like minded thinkers.There you can debate the lack of an educations need for math or any other speciality that disagrees with your sensitivities.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Hi Ryuko-you beutiful girl!! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:a stage that comes with new burdens and benefits.
Like the luxury of thinking long and hard about the purpose of existence, and posting untenable action plans on the internet.
So, when you are giving up your computer because it's made by the immoral people, Irami?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Mo-o-ommmm.. Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Hi Sweety! Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Aunty Eem, why don't you start a thread about Abby as a kid, complete with embarassing photos/stories? Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Auntie Eem,
I wrote this on the last page:
quote:You know, all this should really go on the Tricknology Thread.
This thread used to concern when it's appropriate to make pudgy people feel better about their pudginess.
But this is fine. My educational bitterness extends to OSC's bid to circumvent good health. As to moving to attract like-minded thinkers, that smacks too much of the white-flight approach to public discourse. If there is a problem that occurs here, it may as well be settled here.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Aunty Em, threads here at Hatrack drift, and at the moment Irami's topic is what this thread is about. Most attempts to transplant a conversation to a new thread end up killing the conversation, unfortunately. Probably better to just contine discussing this here.
quote:A higher percentage of scientists and engineers and technicians may have been necessary at the beginning of civilization, but now, it's a little bit gross. One can say the same thing about the American diet. Eating everything on your plate was a virtue in those times of want, but now, with all of the super-sizing going on, there is a little bit of gluttony involved.
That's an interesting thought. Not one that I agree with, but an interesting one nonetheless. At what point do you feel that our society attained a level at which continuing to produce engineers and scientists in any significant number was unnecessary Irami?
This leads me to wonder what you envision as an ideal. If your thoughts on education were instituted, and they functioned as you predict, what would the resulting nation look like? I have ideas of what I think you're hoping to achieve through this, but I don't want to just go with what I assume you're thinking.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nothing is settled when you ignore everytyhing that throws your argument into question.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm sure you all think this is pre-tty funny. Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Thank you Noemon,I get it--just surprised by Irami animosity.I was told it was a little more open on this site. I stand corrected Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I do.
quote: My educational bitterness extends to OSC's bid to circumvent good health.
Now I really can't believe that this is what OSC had intended. His simple idea was to get away from negative rhetoric towards the overweight.
I doubt if he really has an agenda against "good health".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I'm sure you all think this is pre-tty funny.
Yes. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To be honest, Abby, I'm dying of envy.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Did I miss something Ryuko? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I was expecting a "Mor-bo-oo!!" Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, Ryu, but yes.
Then again, my mom doesn't post here, so I'm safe.
(((((katie)))))
[ April 12, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She's a little embarassed, and the rest of us are touched and/or jealous. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, and as a follow up question, what specifically do you think the consequences would be of having far fewer engineers being produced in this country? I'm not talking about what you think the benefits of your educational theories would be here--I'm just asking about what you think the effect on the nation would be if we produced only a tiny percentage of the engineers and scientists that we currently do.
And kat, Banna, and others who are arguing against Irami's ideas, what do *you* think that the consequence of having far fewer engineers and scientists produced would be? This seems clearer to me than Irami's thoughts on the matter, probably because I largely agree with you, but nevertheless it's not a bad idea to state it explicitly, just to get it out there.
[ April 12, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm having a nice, serious debate and then my mom all comes and makes kissy-faces at me. Next she licks her thumb and washes my face with it.
Then the baby-stories come.
Love you, mom.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Oh,I just saw the "ryuko baby thread" suggestion. Where as I have much I could share I never would without permission,and, she knows this. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And kat, Banna, and others who are arguing against Irami's ideas, what do *you* think that the consequence of having far fewer engineers and scientists produced would be?
People would have to be hired from countries that have people who have those skills, and companies would quickly move operations to those places since it is cheaper to be local than hire and ship. Since Irami has also expressed scorn for those who conduct business, we'd turn into a nation of self-important philosophers who can't understand why, if they are supposed to be so much smarter and better than everyone else, it is so hard to live.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Unless of course she pushes the wrong buttons Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Note to self: Stay on mom's good side.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Auntie Em, it's actually a *very* open site. Most of us here are pretty opinionated on at least one subject or another (and usually most of them), but the ideal is that we get as passionate as we like in stating our opinions while making it a point to listen respectfully to each other even if it sounds to us as though that other person's voice is emenating from the general vicinity of their butt. It's an ideal, and we often fall short of it, but we shoot for it nonetheless.
[Edit--you'd think I'd know how to spell by now, but it would seem that you'd be wrong.]
[ April 12, 2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Auntie Eem, Noemon is right, threads drift from topic to topic. Somtimes the titles are changed to reflect that, usually not, I guess. I never thought about it, but he may be right that starting a new thread kills the new topic.
As far as the animosity goes, speaking only for myself, I have nothing against Irami personally. I think he was rude and insensitive in his comments earlier about the moral failings of overweight people, and absurdly dismissive of medical info about genetics, different metabolisms and body types, etc. But I'm over that now.
Now he's just gotten weird, wanting to scrap math and science education in pursuit of some illusive ideal.
We are pretty tolerant in general of opinion at Hatrack, but if you can't back up your opinion with facts, well,...people will call you on it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ryuko, that's a good plan even if your mom doesn't post on Hatrack!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Teaching only some students math and science would probably result in an elite class of mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Particularly if the demand for those people is high. Not only would the general public be too uninformed to make good decisions on what science ought to be conducted (imagine trying to have a debate on embryonic stem cells if people didn't understand why stem cells are useful, or God forbid, what embryos are), but the technical types will be richer and probably more powerful.
I also object to the idea that science and technology are merely driving blind, greedy consumerism. Who will find a cure for cancer, or AIDS? Who will ensure that everyone has access to clean water? Who will find renewable sources of energy? (And yes, we need to find new energy sources, unless you think that a population crash is a permissible way of reducing our consumption of energy--this isn't about sustaining our ability to consume, it's about surviving). It will be the scientists and engineers who do these things, and the more we have, the more quickly we can solve the problems that kill millions or billions of people. Before people can learn to lead honorable, meaningful lives, they have to be able to live at all.
[ April 12, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Morbo I think that is my proplem with his flow. He hasn't been very respectful to any one in particular but expects all to be respectful in return. I geuss I was raised differently. To achieve respect one must earn it and give it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami is one of the posters that you (you = respectable posters like Noemon (not me) ) are polite to in spite of his own behavior and the inanity of his content.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
My problem there is more energy is spent on getting kids to know how to build things rather than getting them to think about what ought to be built.
I think that mechanical knowledge offers a narrow, soft ground on those important questions. Efficiency and stability are fine engineering principles, but they are left wanting in the face of the ills of society. *chuckles* To put it in a sci/fi context, it's the foundation of all of those mad scientist/Michael Chriton books.
Noeman, if the emphasis were removed from math and science, and placed on humanities, I think a broader swath of people would be drawn into the virtue of education, live better lives, and make better decisions. Fewer people would be overweight, or in jail, or committing crime, have high credit card debt, and it may be the case that we'd put what engineering might we had into sustainable fuel, even if that means that cell phones would be a little bit bigger and personal computers a little bit slower.
Edit:
A problem is that educational institutions work asymmetrically to serve one segment of the population with one set of goals, and the penal system works to serve another set of the population with another set of goals, and I'm not sure that that has to be the case, because at the root, the goals aren't that seperate, even if the priorities are.
[ April 12, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hmm, good point, Auntie Eem. But is the disrespect inherent in Iarami's opinions, or in the way he presents them?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well said Shigosei.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pout* I posted a consequence - jobs would leave to where the skilled workers are, since the demand for them would not abate.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Morbo-It is hard to bring myelf to read through the disrespect to get to the content. I have come to the conclusion the he is or seems to be intillegent. I just can't absorbe his theory through his anger and biting remarks.It is enough that I deal with biggotry in the outside world with out having to acknowledge it here. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So Irami, do you disagree with kat's assertion that unemployment rates would go up?
It seems to me that the results would actually be more drastic than those that she outlined. With very few native engineering and science students entering universities, it seems to me that engineering and science departments would shrink dramatically, deteriorate in terms of the type of work they were able to train students in, and eventually die off almost completely. For a short time foreign student attendance would keep enrollment high enough to sustain the programs, but it wouldn't take more than a generation or two, I would guess, for the brain drain phenomenon to stop drawing gifted foreign students to our country. In this country, anyway, I don't think that there would be enough scientists and engineers to make a tremendous difference in solving the problems Shigosei outlined in her post.
I don't disagree with the idea that it is dangerous to study only the hard science and neglect skills such as critical thinking and logic--I feel that as a society we *don't* have our priorities straight in terms of where and how we apply our technical skills and scientific knowledge. I don't, however, think that the answer is to do away with the technical and scientific elements of the curriculum.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We already get a large percentage of our science and math grad students from other countries. So I don't see the departments dying. [Addit: a significant percentage do return to their native countries after a decade or two, and I imagine that might continue.]
Rather, I see us importing the vast majority of such grad students. And then likely keeping them here as workers (again, we already do this quite a bit). But demand would go up drastically, and we would probably have little difficulty attracting enough people from such places as Japan and India.
Actually, it might really help the economy of some third world countries, if enough of their people came here for grad studies and employment, and sent money home.
[ April 12, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's an interesting thought rivka. I knew that a large percentage of our students in science and engineering came from overseas, and that the "brain drain" phenomenon was a problem for those countries, but I didn't realize that the numbers were as high as they must be if you're arguing that having an almost exclusively foreign student body in the sciences would be able to sustain the schools. I'll have to do some digging and see what I can come up with in terms of numbers.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Noeman, at bottom, I think that engineers would still be engineers, they would pick it up later or as an elective. Would unemployment rates go up? I can't tell you. It's a tricky externality. If we aren't spending as much money on social services for those good people have haven't read enough good books, and our populace is of the quality to spend disposable income on research such as cleaner fuel, it could very well be the case that we make an industry out of clean fuel production.
I imagine that we'd have better artists from more vibrant cities, making the US even more attractive for visitors, and even a greater cultural paragon. When I mention a sensiblities change, I think the effects would be deeper and pervasive and even subtle in their way.
Noeman, I'm talking about a large priority shift. The people in Texas, Arizona and California don't complain that their gardeners are foreigners. It's not the exact same, but it is true that our economy would change. I also don't think it would effect the engineers nearly as much as the techs.
[ April 12, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are counting on people picking up math and science as adults, after a lifetime of education has failed them.
This does not happen now; why would it begin to happen?
----
Essentially, it seems that you wish for people to read more good books. Why do you need to eliminate math and science to do so?
My father is one of the most well-read people I have ever met, and got myself and my brothers started on classics, philosophy, and history for fun before junior high. He also has a degree in science (geology) and currently owns a successful business. Why is that such an impossible aspiration that it's necessary to eliminate science and condemn business to achieve it?
[ April 12, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I really don't know numbers. And I know more about specific schools (UCLA because I attended, and Caltech because my dad helps pick incoming grad students) than in general.
But the fact is, qualified American grad students in math and the sciences are courted assiduously by good schools -- flown out, taken to dinner, introduced to the school's muckity-mucks -- in large part because there are so few.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Seriously, Rivka? Does this apply to engineers, too? I've been sort of worrying about getting into grad school because my research has been mostly in biochem rather than bioengineering (which is what I'm majoring in), and I don't work during the school year.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know. I also don't know what GRE scores make one "courtable."
Did you want me to ask my dad? I don't know how much he'll know -- he deals exclusively with math and physics students, I think.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well, don't go out of your way, but if it happens to come up in conversation, I'd be curious to know.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Irami, there would undoubtedly be some people who would embrace science or engineering despite not having been taught it in school beyond a fairly rudimentary level, but the number who would be able to overcome the lack of training in these fields during their childhoods would probably be incredibly small--not enough to supply the country's needs, even with a populace that had a better understanding of what those needs really were. And of course, with most people not having any science training beyond the grade school level (I don't think that you've explicitly stated how much science education you would institute under your plan, so if I'm wrong here tell me) there is the question of whether the general public would be informed enough on science issues to have a clear idea of what our scientific and technological priorities should be, even if they had minds more capable than ours of determining that information given the proper data.
Did that last sentence make any sense? Seems like it was a mile long, and a bit on the convoluted side.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I wish I was in a sexy field of study.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The thing is, it's not just the future scientists and engineers we need to worry about.
Suppose we made the math and science classes available, but optional. That would likely take care of the need for science/math people, but would leave us with an awful lot of adults who are scientifically illiterate.
That's a big enough problem NOW! >_<
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Essentially, it seems that you wish for people to read more good books. Why do you need to eliminate math and science to do so?
My father is one of the most well-read people I have ever met, and got myself and my brothers started on classics, philosophy, and history for fun before junior high. He also has a degree in science (geology) and currently owns a successful business. Why is that such an impossible aspiration that it's necessary to eliminate science and condemn business to achieve it?
I think you are right next to the problem, but remember, this discussion all started because of an "achievement gap," and I think that this "achievement gap" is the result of a lot of things, including market forces along with the easy of administering of math and science courses compromising the academic curriculum in inappropriate ways.
We already saw how an argument about the purpose of educational institutions was dictated by fear of what people in foreign lands are learning. I don't think is appropriate, and I don't think that this is appropriate in a deep way, especially as we have a lot of humanitarian work to do to keep our own house in order.
Rivka,
quote:That would likely take care of the need for science/math people, but would leave us with an awful lot of adults who are scientifically illiterate.
You see this as a bigger problem than I do. My worry is not the math phobic people, my worry is those who are confused in other, more human areas.
[ April 12, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm going to guess that many of the major proponents of renewable energy are scientists, not English teachers. Having fewer scientists or even having the same number with a less science-literate public won't help us much. I think that we need to have our values straight *and* understand the issues. Which is why we need to have a balance between science and humanities.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Essentially, it seems that you wish for people to read more good books. Why do you need to eliminate math and science to do so?
My father is one of the most well-read people I have ever met, and got myself and my brothers started on classics, philosophy, and history for fun before junior high. He also has a degree in science (geology) and currently owns a successful business. Why is that such an impossible aspiration that it's necessary to eliminate science and condemn business to achieve it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are right next to the problem, but remember, this all started because of an "achievement gap," and I think that this "achievement gap" is the result of a lot of things, including market forces along with the easy of administering math and science compromising the academic curriculum in inappropriate ways.
We already saw how an argument about the purpose of educational institutions was dictated by fear of people in foreign lands are learning. I don't think is appropriate, and I don't think that this is appropriate in a deep way, especially as we have a lot of humanitarian work to do to keep our own house in order.
What? Less dancing around; more clarity.
If I can parse what you said and add in other comments, you seem to be saying that it's not impossible, but not everyone has a parent who does that. Is that right?
Then you tried to muddy up the point with dragging in other issues that have nothing to do with the question you are answering. You are such a politician.
[ April 12, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm going to guess that many of the major proponents of renewable energy are scientists, not English teachers.
I don't know about that. I will grant that it's the science people who have a more technically informed opinion. But if scientists and the English teachers are for renewable resources, pray tell, who is holding this up?
[ April 12, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:who is holding this up?
Figuring out who is going to pay for it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
As I don't have a car(I get around on a bike owing to my humanitarian sensibilities), and don't mind a tax increase, I'll put in my bit.
[ April 12, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Something tells me not everyone will be so forthcoming.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I get around on a bike owing to my humanitarian sensibilities
And where you live. You live in an area with limited ground space, high tax base so there is lots of public transportation, and controlled rents so you can live near your work. Is it your contention that everyone who does not live in a high-concentration city is doing so because they don't care about humanity?
Why all the self-righteousness?
You actually edited it to put in the self-righteous comments.
[ April 12, 2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
And instead of digging to the ugliness of where blame and shame for this belongs, and yes, it's going to reduce to character, it's easier to just change priorities, maybe commission a study, and pretend that it's okay to continue guzzling oil.
In my mind, it's the same process as what OSC introduced on the first page.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, people with good character live in the Bay Area and in New York, and people who live other places have bad character?
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Well, I have to agree with that... er... in principle.
<--one of the good people.
[ April 12, 2005, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: no. 6 ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I didn't quite follow that Irami--could you rephrase?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I starting to suspect you haven't actually looked up the meaning of the word character.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Actually good and bad character would be subjective.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is still a generally-agreed upon definition. I'm not surprised but still disgusted the Irami believes it is determined by address and skin color.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*thwaps no. 6*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
OSC's argument is that we shouldn't see pudgy people as pudgy, even though there is an epidemic of pudginess in America and it's not good. I think we could put a big dent in it if people thought more about what they ate, were willing to sacrifice, had not obtained these bad habits in the first place. (That was the first seven pages)
I think it's the same deal with renewable resources.
I also believe more people would eat better and drive less with a more rigorous early education in the humanities.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
No, seriously. I don't think there is a generally agreed upon definition of good character. This term is way too vague.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
No, his argument is that we shouldn't see pudgy people as freaks, and that we shouldn't see stick-thin people as gods.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*contemplates biking the 13 miles to work, in the snow, uphill one way, against the wind on the way back*
(I have biked to work, it's just the snow and wind complication that makes it difficult)
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, your summary of what you are saying rarely, if ever, matches what you have said. Are you backing off of the "throw out all math and science; it makes for immoral people" argument, because it sounds so ridiculous when summed up?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I also believe more people would eat better and drive less with a more rigorous early education in the humanities.
*wipes away tears of laughter*
*points to self as counter-example*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think there is a generally agreed upon definition of good character. This term is way too vague.
No. 6, you are not going to find an adequate definition. Virtue is phenomena. It's like pornography, you know it when you are in its presence. It doesn't mean it's subjective, rather, it just isn't perfectly finite, so it doesn't have a definition.
You can go do dictionary.com or someone where else, but you'll just find an inadequate standard, kind of like what Flying Cow spoke of in the teachers thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Without a strong science background, the only way people can know about the sustainability problem is by believing it when others tell them about it. Fine - all knowledge is in some sense dependent on that.
But, without a strong science background, they will have no way to evaluate competing scientific arguments. That's why some idiot with a high-voltage, low-current electric motor tools around telling people his car runs on the current of one common 9-volt battery.
It does. But it runs on the voltage of 10,000 9-volt batteries. Yet there's a significant number of people who think this guy could "solve the energy crisis." Why? Because they lack basic understandings of science you don't think they should learn.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
no. 6, am I right in thinking that you're Elaine?
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I agree Irami. At least to that point on character.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On what - that it is nebulous, or that living in the Bay Area proves one has good character?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you say the second, I'm gonna thwap you again. Builds character.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, your summary of what you are saying rarely, if ever, matches what you have said. Are you backing off of the "throw out all math and science; it makes for immoral people" argument, because it sounds so ridiculous when summed up?
Kat,
I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions. Look at my response No. 6's question. It's not percise. It's a little hand-wavy. It's neither objective nor subjective, it's got nothing to do with faith or science, in short, there is a large swath of american institutions who would find this answer unsuitable. The thing is, it's appropriate.
Profiles in Courage is a decent book. What makes piece of art is that one feels the presence of courage as one reads it.
[ April 12, 2005, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions.
Um, what?
WHAT "preeminence of science?"
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Sorry about ducking your thwap, rivka. Pressing work issues.
I'd have to say that the character thing is nebulous. AND that we are really cool here in the Bay Area. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And people talk about Texans' delusional superiority complex. Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Texans have a superiority complex?
I thought they were just greedy. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're so cute when you're provincial, elaine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*decides to hold the promised thwap in abeyance*
For now.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I'm pretty sure most public schools have a curriculum that resembles this:
1 math class 1 science class 1 english class 1 history class 1 elective ================= Math and science is less than half of the curriculum. What kind of preeminence are you talking about?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Actually, math and science have an even smaller part of the curriculum; most (high) schools have 7 or 8 periods. Typically, the schedule looks a bit more like this: 1) Math 2) Science 3) English 4) History/Social Sciences (I'm thinking Government and Economics here) 5) Foreign Language 6) P.E./Business/Computer/Music/Theater/Art/Technical stuff (like Woodshop, Work-study, or Apprenticeship type classes) 7) See 6
I think this is a fairly balanced school schedule, and it was the norm at my high school (at least for the students who weren't complete slackers trying to avoid all forms of education). I'm not saying it's perfect--I'd love to see a required philosophy course or, even better, a critical reasoning and writing course, but I think a student who followed the above schedule for four years would come out of high school with a strong knowledge base that they can apply either in college or the "real world."
edited to add: no. 6 is correct. We simply are super cool in the Bay Area
[ April 12, 2005, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Math and science is less than half of the curriculum. What kind of preeminence are you talking about?
Do you see what you did? You quantified under inappropriate lines and judged, probably under the background of majority rule, and somehow that's seen as appropriate. It's amazing that that's how we've been programmed to take in information. It's distressing. I can play the game, too. In high school, I took algebra my freshman year. I really haven't used anything past algebra in seven years, the basic geometry I learned in junior high is fine.
And any math I've learned for specialize tasks is math I've learned for specialized tasks, against the back drop of sixth grade math.
I think morally, speak, and write everyday, and my diction is atrocious. Not only that, the decisions I make concerning thinking, reading, and writing are important, not only to myself, but to those around me. So even under a strict utilitarian calculus-- a means that I don't think is at all appropriate, but is so thoughtlessly pervasive it's disconcerting-- two classes out of five is too much.
Would it be so bad to have a reading and a writing course? I wouldn't mind a Great Books course, a writing/language/philology course, intellectual history course(western thought), a traditional history course(chronicling wars, I hate that, but maybe it's necessary, I don't think so, but I can't decide.), and math/science.
There are six courses. Maybe we could toggle one of the history courses with an foreign language or other elective course.
[ April 12, 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As opposed to you talking about its eminence with no evidence whatsoever?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Mine is non-traditional evidence. It doesn't mean I'm wrong, it merely means that the problem isn't going to be solved by subtracting 3 - 2.
If basket weaving took up two out of five classes, I'd raise an alarm about the inappropriate sway of such an accidental endeavor.
[ April 13, 2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You haven't offered any evidence, non-traditional or otherwise, you've merely asserted it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I assume you mean "an incidental" instead of "and accidental".
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Take kaioshin00's answer. Instead of thinking about education's task and it's relation to 21st century American public citizen, he/she subtracted 3 - 2. In his/her defense, he/she got a neat, clean answer, it doesn't mean it's at all appropriate.
Look at Flying Cow's post on the Teachers' thread. It's the same phenomena. ________
There is a sense in which the 1000 post landmark is held hostage by the same bounds, but it's become ritualized in a nice way.
I meant "accidental" as in a deviation or falling off from the essence of man.
[ April 13, 2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, a definition nobody but you uses. I'm surprised I didn't immediately see that.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I managed to avoid posting on this thread when it was concerning itself with diet and weight, and I thought I could keep myself from posting as it moved into academics, but...
Into the breach!
Irami: Preeminence is defined as "high status importance owing to marked superiority" by dictionary.com. Accepting this as our definition of preeminence, we can call math and science as subjects preeminent over other subjects only if they are given a high status by our culture (or whatever other general social body you're claiming gives preeminence to these subjects). However, anyone can claime that something is given high status or not--it's a pretty subjective idea, and depends quite a bit on a person's personal history. You can say that engineers get respect in social circles, I can say that everyone I know wants to be an author...
So, I propose that the best way to tell whether something is given a high status by our society/culture is by the amount of resources (time, money, etc) devoted to it. The more you vaule "fitness" the more time you'll spend exercising, and perhaps you'll spend money to get a gym membership. If you value fien jewlery, you'll be willing to spend money to purchase it.
From an educational standpoint, if the schooling is free, then the resource that a student can devote to different subjects is his time. If a student thinks that "science and math" are high status subjects, then he will devote relatively more of his time to studying these subjects than he will other ones.
However, the typical American student does not spend more time studying science and math than he does the humanites (english, history, art, music, etc). I'll see if I can find a study to prove this claim, but I think most people who have been through the American education system can agree to this claim... thus, I would say that science and math aren't given preeminence
more later...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Irami, you seem to have this notion that if people were only educated "properly" they'd think like you, and that the only reason they aren't is that lack. Though I don't think you'll pay the least bit of attention (which is an amusing lack of the critical thinking you affect to support), that's not how people work, for which the evidence is abundant, in whatever form you care to take it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, also, I'd like to know how basket weaving is a "deviation or falling off from the essence of man".
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions.
quote: Take kaioshin00's answer. Instead of thinking about education's task and it's relation to 21st century American public citizen, he/she subtracted 3 - 2. In his/her defense, he/she got a neat, clean answer, it doesn't mean it's at all appropriate.
My post had nothing to do with the education system. I wanted to know how you came up with science and math being preeminent over the rest of the subjects.
Preeminent means "Superior to or notable above all others."
How else would you measure this than quantitatively? Please, tell me how you decide whether one thing is "notable above all others" without looking at the amount present of the items your comparining.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I also believe more people would eat better and drive less with a more rigorous early education in the humanities.
This is ridiculous, Irami. I had twice the early humanities education you had, and I drive --and weigh -- at least twice as much as you do.
--------
quote: I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions. Look at my response No. 6's question. It's not percise. It's a little hand-wavy. It's neither objective nor subjective, it's got nothing to do with faith or science, in short, there is a large swath of american institutions who would find this answer unsuitable.
The biggest reason it's unsuitable, Irami, is that the only thing going for that argument is that you say so. It's not logical. It's not precise. It's ambiguous and fluffy and chock full of pretention. And we should believe it because you feel it's true.
That's actually a remarkably fascist viewpoint.
[ April 13, 2005, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Mine is non-traditional evidence. It doesn't mean I'm wrong, it merely means that the problem isn't going to be solved by subtracting 3 - 2.
You know, you're always dismissive of math, science, and people who have specialized in either. When you elaborated on your proposed curriculum change it didn't seem terribly unreasonable to me, but what you missed is that you pretty much did exactly what you criticize kaoshin for, which is to say that you gave us a list. kaoshin's list was a guess at the current curriculum; yours was a guess at the ideal curriculum.
If he's subtracting two from three, then so are you.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Wow. Are we still arguing about this?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why not? We still disagree.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Hmmm. I guess as the type who throws in the towel after three pages, I don't understand the other types.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*throws towel at Annie*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Think of it as spinning a yo-yo.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Ah. OK. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I think Irami's point with the basketweaving comparison was not that math/science are given the most time and resources in American education (which is really irrelevant), but that they are given more time and resources than they deserve. Just as it would be a misuse of resources to require everyone to take two periods of basketweaving.
However, I'm skeptical that the utility of math/science has sunk to that of basketweaving. I'm also skeptical that reducing the time spent on math/science and using it on humanities instead would actually improve most students' grasp of humanities. Learning in different subjects is more often complementary than mutally exclusive.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Twinky, I did that on purpose. I thought I made it clear when I said, "I can play that game too."
quote:You know, you're always dismissive of math, science, and people who have specialized in either.
I don't mind people who have specialized in either, I am, however, suspicious of why the general run is taught to revere both, out of principle.
Tom,
quote:This is ridiculous, Irami. I had twice the early humanities education you had, and I drive --and weigh -- at least twice as much as you do.
But you feel bad about it. That counts for a lot.
quote:The biggest reason it's unsuitable, Irami, is that the only thing going for that argument is that you say so. It's not logical. It's not precise. It's ambiguous and fluffy and chock full of pretention. And we should believe it because you feel it's true.
That's actually a remarkably fascist viewpoint.
Well, No. 6 thinks so also, and I don't think that's happenstance. And if number six didn't agree, we'd sit down and speak to it. The great thing about math and science is that it let's people go on. You get a quick answer, and you get to the next concept. That's seductive in its percision, but in important matters, it's really silly. It's not fascist if people are engaged with the ground of education, it's fascism if I tell people what the ground is and enforce it by the law. There is an argument to be made that the current system has a stronger sense of fascism, and then is guided by the tyranny of what's quantifiable.
kaioshin00,
quote:Please, tell me how you decide whether one thing is "notable above all others" without looking at the amount present of the items your comparing.
The same way you know it's bad to steal. You think about it.
[ April 13, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You get a quick answer, and you get to the next concept. That's seductive in its percision, but in important matters, it's really silly."
What's interesting, Irami, is that I think the "sit down and talk about it" approach is already being used for important matters, even the ones influenced by -- and influencing -- science.
What we're bad at is listening.
------
"The same way you know it's bad to steal. You think about it."
What, exactly, do you think about it? If you do not compare and contrast these items in measurable ways, what are you thinking about?
[ April 13, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
WWID
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"What, exactly, do you think about it?"
It's put against the backdrop of all of your experience and narratives, and then, you pick the side that invites dignity or virtue or God or whatever to presence.
Now to someone who says that this is an example of the schools abrogating the duties of parents, I'd argue that this task is big enough to be shared. I mean, there is a reason why they have "To Kill a Mockingbird" in the schools, and the schools are better for it. Secondly, this discussion is all rooted in making the curriculum dignified in relevant way, and that doesn't come from teaching kids formulas, it comes from inviting kids to think about morally relevant issues.
[ April 13, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Which involves comparing it to your previous experience and taking a rough measure of its worth or value.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It's put against the backdrop of all of your experience and narratives, and then, you pick the side that invites dignity or virtue or God or whatever to presence.
Alternatively, you could consider it in a roughly (but not strictly) utilitarian fashion and arrive at the same result (in the case of stealing, that is).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's an odd standard for deciding what's treated preeminently in society, which is what at least some of us have been trying to figure out your mechanism for, as you say you've produced evidence (for math and science being preeminent) but don't seem able to point at it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's an odd standard for deciding what's treated preeminently in society, which is what at least some of us have been trying to figure out your mechanism for...."
As far as I can tell, what Irami is saying is that when he decided that math and science were preeminent concerns in American education, he did so by sitting down and meditating until he concluded that this would be the interpretation with the most dignity.
Scientists should be flattered, apparently.
[ April 13, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami is at least consistent is his unconcern for science. It is much easier to keep your delusions when you believe it is undignified to test them against reality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think what concerns me about Irami's approach is that I see far too much of it -- from my perspective as an employee at a private liberal arts college -- among Humanities faculty. It leads to a perception that Truth doesn't matter as much as Right and Wrong, and I believe this perception to be profoundly damaging.
For example, we recently had a case here on campus where someone screamed racism where no racism had occurred. After the facts were brought to light, the person crying racism continued to do so, on the following grounds:
1) Racism is a more compelling narrative than incompetence. 2) That racism exists is a terrible wrong. Therefore, we should expend energy fighting racism not only where it occurs, but also where it does not occur, because not fighting racism is akin to encouraging racism -- and, therefore, refusing to punish someone for being racist even when he was not being racist merely reinforces the idea that it's okay to be racist, whereas punishing that person would have reinforced the idea that racism is bad regardless if that individual had been racist or not.
I find that position ludicrous in the extreme. But she was genuinely surprised to discover that I did not find her argument compelling.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
yuck.
quote:Alternatively, you could consider it in a roughly (but not strictly) utilitarian fashion...
And I imagine that one may go to a prostitute and obtain roughly an approximation of making love, but I'm not sure that's the same thing, there is degrading aspect.
Kat,
Then I imagine, after taking this estimate, you'd compare these two by some calculus. What I'm saying that comparisons are tricky business and the important onese don't have common currency from which to adjudicate. The important decisions usually are between apples and oranges, except morally relevant. And trying to reduce everything to a common currency degrades that which you are speaking to.
[ April 13, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*waits patiently for some evidence, in any form, that math and science are preeminent*
C'mon Irami, there's definitely evidence out there, even if I think it ultimately would fail to support your conclusion.
Of course, since you say you've already provided it, you really should be restricted to quoting yourself where you stated that evidence.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
None of which addresses the concerns that have been brought against your argument, and is again another example of you dancing away from the issue and trying to muddy your steps with another inflammatory subject.
At least pretend you are being honest in this discussion.
[ April 13, 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The important decisions usually are between apples and oranges, except morally relevant. And trying to reduce everything to a common currency degrades that which you are speaking to."
Hm. This is where I'm going to get philosophical to prove you wrong.
Because it is, as you know, possible to compare apples to oranges. And the comparison is indeed as scientific as any other comparison, even though they aren't the same fruit.
Apples and oranges share several traits. They have flavors. They have colors. They have sizes. They are fruits. You can say that an apple is red, while an orange is orange. Apples are, in general, tangier and less juicy than oranges, while oranges are more acidic. Most varieties of oranges and apples are of a similar size, but slightly different shapes (and textures).
You can say, then, that if someone wants to eat something that is acidic and orange-colored, he would be better off with an orange.
And that's a perfectly scientific way of comparing apples to oranges.
Now, you can ask "which is better?" And here's where it gets hard -- not because apples and oranges aren't similar enough to be compared, but because the word "better" is meaningless when the things being compared are each suited more ideally for a specific need or task or niche. Apples are much better at pie, for example. Oranges are better in chocolates. And both are equally good at juice, unless you're trying to compare by mass.
Whichever one makes you happier, or which you prefer, depends entirely -- as long as you're honest with yourself -- on which criteria you're using for that determination.
What you're doing, Irami, is refusing to admit that you're applying criteria. And we're all saying "bull" -- because, let's face it, you are applying criteria. You just want to get away with being lazy and making up and/or changing your criteria at a moment's notice.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
See, my problem isn't that you view things a certain way, it's that you look on other views with disdain.
There's nothing terribly wrong about thinking you're better than some people, everyone does that to an extent. But dripping disdain for everyone who doesn't see things precisely your way is a bit much.
Edit:
Also,
quote:And I imagine that one may go to a prostitute and obtain roughly an approximation of making love, but I'm not sure that's the same thing. A degrading aspect.
Going to a prostitute: sexual gratification with short-term partner.
Making love: sexual gratification, emotional bonding with long-term partner.
Utility is clearly greater for making love, since strengthening the emotional bond between two long-term partners is pretty obviously of value to a society. If all we needed was to get our rocks off, families wouldn't exist.
I'm not strongly utilitarian in my views, but unlike you I don't look down my nose at someone who is.
[ April 13, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: quote:Please, tell me how you decide whether one thing is "notable above all others" without looking at the amount present of the items your comparing.
The same way you know it's bad to steal. You think about it.
I'm thinking about it, and I don't think that they're preeminent. Nor are they quantitatively preeminent.
It doesn't seem like anyone else feels like the sciences are too much, either. If we are indeed supposed to be feeling this, then how come no one is? Are you the only one here who has freed his mind from the evil clutches of our math and science based society?
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
hey Tom, what you should've done is just for the sake of argument, start calling her a racist and persecuting her for it ;-) See what she thinks of her view then. By her philosophy she should be punished for being racist just for being accused of it. And you could construct a nice argument that she is racist, too, along the lines of her being prejudiced against a race of people who she claims has prejudice against another race.
I would like to point out that in general those who excel at math/science also tend to excel at the humanities.
Also, to separate the subjects so much that it creates this division is just not sound. Everything requires everything else.
To be a basket weaver/artist, you need to have skill in calculation and engineering as well as an aesthetic eye. To be a doctor you need to know biology inside and out and also need to have an understanding of philosophy regarding ethics of human life. To be a philosopher you need to know the great religious works and also you need to be able to do a complex logic proof. A historian needs to know humanities and philosophy and science and math in order to study the history of all these things well.
Of course, you can be in any of these professions and lack a skill on either the science or the humanities side of things, but then you just won't be very good at whatever you're doing. You'll be an imprecise artist, or an unethical doctor, a philosopher unable to make a sound argument, or a shallow historian.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"hey Tom, what you should've done is just for the sake of argument, start calling her a racist and persecuting her for it"
Yeah, see, for all that I hate my boss, I like my job. So no. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Tom,
I'm not saying that there aren't conditions of satisfaction, I'm saying that with important matters the criteria often aren't finitely enumerable. That's why I think the pornography metaphor works. You aren't going to find a scientific standard to adjudicate pornography from art deserving of reverence, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.
quote:I think what concerns me about Irami's approach is that I see far too much of it -- from my perspective as an employee at a private liberal arts college -- among Humanities faculty. It leads to a perception that Truth doesn't matter as much as Right and Wrong, and I believe this perception to be profoundly damaging.
I'll be the first to say that the Humanities, as currently studied, do a good job in making themselves irrelevant, especially in this post-structuralism, post-truth, post-wisdom approach that makes everything concern idiosyncracies of the writer. I also blame the love affair everything new, even crap. I think social sciences are even bigger offenders, trying to behave like hard sciences, and failing at the tasks with which they are charged. My argument is that the "achievement" gap is rooted in the disconnect between our educational institutions and the human condition, including public affairs.
kaioshin00,
quote:Are you the only one here who has freed his mind from the evil clutches of our math and science based society?
No, I'm in a quiet minority. I don't know if it's an issue of freeing ourselves from math and science, as much as it's an issue of relegating the principles they imbue to the appropriate situtions, that is, not getting drunk with the exactitude math and science confer. I think American institutions are carrying on with a comely mistress instead of going home to their spouse and kids where they belong.
[ April 13, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: My argument is that the "achievement" gap is rooted in the disconnect between our educational institutions and the human condition, including public affairs.
But, see, you're blaming the wrong villain, here. The fact that we are occasionally successful at teaching math and science is not to blame for our failure to properly teach philosophy and politics. (In fact, I find that having a solid grounding in the hard sciences has made it considerably easier for me to think philosophically.)
The issue is not, I think, one of education but one of reward; out in the real world, we do not always value what we say we value. And so some of the behaviors that we as a society say we expect from our people are in fact punished, and I believe that children (and their parents) pick up on this and react accordingly. And I don't think education can fill this gap, as the problem is not with the schools but with the world outside the school.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm with Russel
quote: *waits patiently for some evidence, in any form, that math and science are preeminent*
"I have thought on it, So Mote It Be!" is not evidence, Irami.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The issue is not, I think, one of education but one of reward; out in the real world, we do not always value what we say we value. And so some of the behaviors that we as a society say we expect from our people are in fact punished, and I believe that children (and their parents) pick up on this and react accordingly. And I don't think education can fill this gap, as the problem is not with the schools but with the world outside the school.
I agree almost everything you said. I also believe that it is the task of education to clarify this gap, and good intentions to fill it.
[ April 13, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was trained in the humanities as a historian, yet he takes the opposite view from you, Irami--that we need more science and math training, not less. So do many other congresspeople (hopefully, Wolf-Ehlers -Warner bill will pass) and the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission.
But you should call them up, Irami, surely with a little creative hand-waving and -wringing you could convince them all of the brillance of your thesis.
Gingrich, in yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, link:
quote: Gingrich pushes sciences By JEFFREY McMURRAY Associated Press Published on: 04/13/05 WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich majored in history and made his mark in politics, yet his message Tuesday was that the country could use fewer historians and political scientists and more mathematicians and engineers.
The Georgia Republican waded into a rare congressional policy debate since leaving the U.S. House, endorsing a measure by two Virginia lawmakers that would waive interest on student loans for college students who major in math, science or engineering. "Science and math are absolutely at the center of our national survival," Gingrich said. "If we do not step up to the plate this time, if we don't recognize the scale of the Chinese, the Indian, the Japanese and the European challenges, we're in desperate trouble."
The issue has concerned Gingrich for several years. During the Clinton administration, he was involved in the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission, which projected that the greatest threat to America by 2025 is the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction.
Less noticed, Gingrich said, was what the commission concluded was the second-greatest threat: failure to remain competitive in math and science.
Reps. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) introduced the student loan measure in the House, and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) pledged to do the same in the Senate. The proposal, inspired by a suggestion in Gingrich's book "Winning the Future," would forgive up to $10,000 over the life of an undergraduate loan for math, science and engineering majors who agree to work at least five years in the field after graduation.
On a more practical note, do you realize how hard it is to find a non-teaching job with only an English BA? Without at least some technical savvy and education, many people are doomed to un- or under-employment, or working outside of their field of study.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
When I wanted to teach, I spent a lot of time looking over the requirements, and of course, since I'm paying for this myself, I checked out what financial incentives were offered for people who wanted to go into teaching.
For people like me, there were essentially zero. See, I wanted to teach English Language Arts. If I wanted to teach math, or any of the sciences, I had a large number of resources available that would help pay for my education.
As for finding a job as an English major who doesn't want to teach - yeah, I understand. My mother was an English major, she went into human resources. She got where she is today mostly by on-the-job training and building her resume with experience.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, I'm not entirely sure what your point was here
quote: For people like me, there were essentially zero. See, I wanted to teach English Language Arts. If I wanted to teach math, or any of the sciences, I had a large number of resources available that would help pay for my education.
Are you saying that you think there should be equal resources available for potential humanities teachers?
Because there is a reason that there are not. While overall we do not have enough teachers, the only fields where we come close are the humanities. In math and the sciences there is a serious lack of qualified teachers, especially at the high school level. Therefore, there are incentive programs, and it's easier for me to find a job (although not actually easy, at least in the current economic climate) than for a history teacher I know.
Until recently, she had stayed at the same school for several years, despite her strong unhappiness with the administration there -- because she knew of nowhere else in the area that would hire her. And she was an excellent teacher, with quite a few years' experience.
Now she's gotten out of teaching altogether, which I think is a shame for her potential students, but seems to be working well for her. (Mind, if I were able to find a job that paid more than my current one and didn't require several years of training, I'd likely be getting out of teaching as well.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Belle's point was that science and math are not overemphasized. The difference is so striking that there is no need to encourage people to focus on humanities; people already do.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Rivka, sorry I should have been more clear. I was posting that just to reiterate what Morbo said about the government being concerned about our direction in math and science - encouraging teachers to go into those fields is more evidence of that.
I don't have a problem with encouraging more people to become math and science teachers and providing financial incentives.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Then we agree.
OTOH, given the fact that there are NEVER enough good teachers in any subject, I do wish that people like the friend I mentioned above were more able to find jobs that utilize their skills and pay them a decent wage.
[ April 14, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Or what kat said.
Edit: Yup. In fact my cousin wants to become a teacher and she loves math - I've been encouraging her to take advantage of whatever is out there to help her get her teaching certificate in math.
[ April 14, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Morbo,
quote: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich majored in history and made his mark in politics, yet his message Tuesday was that the country could use fewer historians and political scientists and more mathematicians and engineers.
I'm not convinced Mr. Gingrich and I agree about the problems in education. Maybe he is tackling institutional problems leading to the achievement gap, but I don't think so. He is well-ensconced and comfortable.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But he is well-educated in the humanities, which you said would produce like-minded people. Where, exactly, did the plan fail?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Who said that it would produce like-minded people? I would never close the door on the possibility of good people disagreeing. Most polytheistic religions had even the Gods disagree.
At best, we can only hope that people are disagreeing at a higher level. So Mr. Gingrich studied history. I imagine that if one compares what he thinks history is and what I understand history to be, you'll get two distinct answers. If you ask ten different people about the task put to a student of history, you'll probably get ten different answers. The same can be said for any of the humanities, currently concieved. Haven't you been appalled at what has been considered the work of some English Graduate students?
It seems to me that Mr. Gingrich is well-grounded in the institution, and it's not surprising to me that a man who is so well-grounded doesn't think that it's a worthy task to re-explore the ground on which he thrives. And tilling that ground is exactly what I prescribe.
[ April 14, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What? You've twisted yourself up in your metaphor. Can you even HAVE a straight-forward discussion?
Specifically, Gringrich disagrees with you completely about your proposal to eliminate math and science because it takes people away from the humanities, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Considering this, why do you still think you are right?
[ April 14, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Specifically, Gringrich disagrees with you completely about your proposal to eliminate math and science because it takes people away from the humanities, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I don't know if what I consider the undue influence of math and the sciences takes people away from the humanities, but I think emphasis does corrupt those disciplines.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
However you backpedal and soften on your reccomendation, Gringrich - the well-educated in humanities guy - disagrees with you.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Oh, I'm sure that people much brighter and thoughtful than Gingrich disagree with me, too. Good thing it's not a popularity contest.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, why do you think you are right and he is wrong? What criteria are you using?
Your contention that you thought about it carefully and that settles it has already been proven to be laughable.
[ April 14, 2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think Gingrich and I have two different sets of priorities. He is talking about the economic challenges that are going to be put to our tech economy in the coming decades. I'm talking about equiping students for the moral challenges that they face every day, that education leaves them wanting.
Look, to the extent that education is the engine for economic growth, maybe Gingrich is right, but that also means that if our kids can figure out a way to make a buck and ditch class, there really isn't any reason for them to go.
My understanding of the work of educational institutions is fundamentally different.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your claim is that an education in humanities would fundamentally change people so they no value things that science and industry give them, but would instead think like you.
Gringrich is an example to the contrary. Why do you think your educational system is preferable to his?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
More importantly, why do you believe they are fundamentally imcompatible to such an extent that you want to eliminate math and science from the curriculum for fear someone would value it?
Added: Sifting through the detrius, it seems that you wish people to consider their moral obligations and value more than just money. You believe that lots of study of moral stories and history would achieve this effect.
What part of that do you want to disavow/add on to?
[ April 14, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:More importantly, why do you believe they are fundamentally imcompatible to such an extent that you want to eliminate math and science from the curriculum for fear someone would value it?
Eliminate is inadequate, and I don't fear someone would value science. It's obvious that people do value it, and at a level, it should be valued. I also think that's because certain metaphysics give undue credence to the pursuit of science to solve problems that are not so easily sovled. For example, on Dagonee's thread, I wrote on the origin of facts, but I didn't go into the problems that go along with such an origin. One of the problems with facts is that science got it's ground from God dignifying all extant results. What's the problem with that? For starters, God dignifying results lead to God's approval of all that consistantly works, deifying physics, chemistry, and everything else that is seen as a doing, or making of God, that is, a fact. Christianity and science belong together, especially in Locke, whose metaphysics holds so much sway in American institutions. The danger isn't all of the questions science answers well, the danger is the use of scientific priorities to answer those other questions that call for thinking, and not the application of a method to be gauged by results.
quote:Sifting through the detrius, it seems that you wish people to consider their moral obligations and value more than just money. You believe that lots of study of moral stories and history would achieve this effect.
It's not so much money, as much as the idea that we can reduce the virtue of everything to fungible units, to be added, subtracted, divided, and multiplied. The extent to which we talk concerning value instead of virtue, I think we've already missed something.
I believe that narratives inform who we are as individuals and as a people, and I think that the careful study of morally involved stories, stories considering the decisions people make and the reasons they make them, can help clarify who we are as individuals and as a people. Lastly, I think that we are missing something with language.
English is a hodgepodge and that's not necessarily bad, but I think that for too long, I learned the sense of words through context, or the dictionary, as opposed to looking to the phenomena that inspired the word, and I think that the seeming interchangability of language clouds thinking and conceals, in a powerful way, the dignity in life. So yes, wrestling with narratives, History, and Language will open the door to more Americans making more careful and thoughtful decisions, it may even ground one America.
I think this is the reason that Americans are not one people. The disconnects in the country are the results of uneven grounding in the American institutions, and some of this is because the institutions are inadequate to their task, and some of this is because the people throw out the good part of the institution out with the bad.
[ April 14, 2005, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*delighted* Irami, that is an excellent, reasonable, cogent argument. Fabulous!
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More importantly, why do you believe they are fundamentally imcompatible to such an extent that you want to eliminate math and science from the curriculum for fear someone would value it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate is inadequate, and I don't fear someone would value it. It's obvious that people do value it, and at a level, it should be valued,
Yes.
quote:I also think that's because certain metaphysics give undue credence to the pursuit of science to solve problems that are not so easily sovled.
Okay, I think I agree with this. If I may put it in my own words, you are saying that learning the scientific facts of a situation does not fully answer the question of what to do with those facts. Because an action may be possible or even efficient resourcewise, it does not automatically follow that it is the correct course of action. There are other, non-quantifiable concerns. These concerns are identified in many ways, one of which is through history and through the stories we tell each other. Religion is another source for these non-quantifiable concerns.
Therefore, someone canNOT consider themselves educated if they are lacking in a grounding in the humanities, no matter how well-educated they are sciencewise.
I agree with that.
quote:The problem isn't all of the natural questions science answers well, the problem is the use of scientific priorities to answer those other questions that call for thinking, and not the application of a method and gauged by results.
Hmm...the problem is that you still haven't explained/aknowledged the nature of that thinking. Even when not strictly observing the scientific method and using resource efficiency as the highest value, you still use a paradigm to understand the information, a method by which to evaluate it, and a rubric against which to measure its worth.
Is your problem more with the priorities of a purely scientific point-of-view, or with the method? No matter which it is, if you want to eliminate it, you need to explain what you would replace it with. It isn't enough to eliminate the underdesirable; you have to replace it with something, or else it could be replaced with anything. You could eliminate the efficiency value only for it to be replaced with the picks-up-women-well value. You can't just unmake; you need to make. If you are entrusted with the well-being of the public - and designing curricula for schools counts as this - you must take into account their interests and happiness. Otherwise you have betrayed their trust.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sifting through the detrius, it seems that you wish people to consider their moral obligations and value more than just money. You believe that lots of study of moral stories and history would achieve this effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not so much money, as much as the idea that we can reduce the virtue of everything to fungible units, to be added, subtracted, divided, and multiplied. The extent to which we talk concerning value instead of virtue, I think we've already missed something.
You know what this reminds me of? The "priceless" MasterCard commercials.
That's fine - they have a point. I like them. I agree with you.
quote:I believe that narratives inform who we are as individuals and as a people, and I think that the careful study of morally involved stories, stories considering the decisions people make and the reasons they make them, can help clarify who we are as individuals and as a people.
So do I. That's why I love English and storytelling of all kinds.
quote:Lastly, I think that we are missing something with language.
English is a hodgepodge and that's not necessarily bad, but I think that for too long, I learned the sense of words through context, or the dictionary, as opposed to looking to the phenomena that inspired the word, and I think that the seeming interchangability of language clouds thinking and conceals, in a powerful way, the dignity in life. So yes, wrestling with narratives, History, and Language will open the door to more Americans making more careful and thoughtful decisions, it may even ground one America.
Hm...kind of like the way you can be an incredible Scrabble player and have a lousy vocabulary, it is possible to be familiar with the tools of language and not understand where the language we speak comes from, how those meanings arose, and what that tells us about humanity.
quote:I think this is the reason that Americans are not one people. I think the disconnects in the country are the result of uneven grounding in the American institutions, and some of that is because the institutions are inadequate to their task, and some of that is because the people throw out the good part of the institution out with the bad.
Ah. Now we disagree. I think it would be solved by everyone reading more, more of everything. It won't make people perfect people, but they'll act knowledgebly. People will still choose different things, but they'll have acted with as much knowledge as possible of the different choices.
So, how to make a more critically-thinking and literate population. You think schools should be restructured. I don't believe that would work - it would be nice if it did, but it isn't close enough, and schools do still need to teach math and science and health and computer skills in order to keep society running enough to keep everyone fed, and, in no small part, because there is a desire for those subjects to be taught. Education is a public trust, and people's desires matter.
The goal would be better accomplished by turning off the television and more reading to kids at home. In other words, the problem is not with the schools, which are needed to teach the things that parents can't, but instead in the homes, where almost everyone can read to their kids.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Christianity and science belong together, especially in Locke, whose metaphysics holds so much sway in American institutions.
This seems like an inaccurate statement to me. For one thing, Locke was very skeptical of the kind of knowledge we can receive through natural theology and revealed religion. It's true that his notion of God leads to a certain story about human capabilities for empirical learning (it's actually a rather pessimistic story), but an evolutionary version of the same story could easily be constructed.
Also, the philosopher who followed most closely in the Lockean tradition -- Hume -- was almost certainly an atheist.
Anyway, as a student of the humanities myself, I couldn't possibly disagree more. It's very easy to persuade someone of a falsehood with flowery language, as the classical rhetoricians knew very well. In the humanities the connection between convincingness and the truth is more tenuous (not that scientific statistics can't be manipulated). So studying the humanities is risky business -- it can easily lead one to ideology for the wrong reasons. I would say that in order to effectively study the humanities, one needs a solid grasp of math and science as a sort of sanity check.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This seems like an inaccurate statement to me. For one thing, Locke was very skeptical of the kind of knowledge we can receive through natural theology and revealed religion. It's true that his notion of God leads to a certain story about human capabilities for empirical learning (it's actually a rather pessimistic story), but an evolutionary version of the same story could easily be constructed.
Destineer,
Locke couldn't ground the laws of nature in his mechanistic theory, and also couldn't explain how bodies stay together, and how bodies think, he wrote that God annexed powers to those bodies for which the bodies are fitly disposed, thereby grounding science and shunting philosophy to God. As to evolution, I'm a believer. I think evolution got us here, the problem is that I don't think that the careful analysis of chemicals in the brain can tell us what to do once we are here.
From Book 4 Human Understanding:
quote:We have the ideas of matter and thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know, whether any mere material being thinks, or no; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover, whether omnipotency has not given to some systems of matter fitly disposed a power to perceive and think, or else joined and fixed to matter so disposed a thinking immaterial substance...For since we must allow He has annexed effects to motion, which we can no way conceive motion able to produce, what reason have we to conclude, that He could not order them as well to be produced in a subject we cannot conceive capable of them, as well as in a subject we cannot conceive the motion of matter can any way operate upon?
I've never been a fan of Locke's writing style, but I'm confident my interpretation is spot on.
My thought is, since Locke puts natural laws on God to explain how material bodies stay together, I'm not surprised that he needs all sorts of laws to keep people together. It seems to be the result of an atomistic theory that requires laws and doesn't recognize belonging. I'm never surprised when I hear mechanistics, including Bertrand Russell, support the "Free Love" movement.
kat,
quote:The goal would be better accomplished by turning off the television and more reading to kids at home. In other words, the problem is not with the schools, which are needed to teach the things that parents can't, but instead in the homes, where almost everyone can read to their kids.
This dichotomy, moral education at home/technique at school, is controversial. We are entrenched in it in America, and it's a comfortable and safe habit, but I'm of the opinion that it makes it the case that school only works for those whose moral home education teaches them to worship technique. And not only does that alienate a portion of the citizenry from school, I'm not even sure that that's an appropriate dichotomy to begin with.
I find this part of the original, 1780 Massachusetts Constitution fascinating, not because it clarifies the role public of education, but because it understands it as properly murky. I'm not saying that I believe it, I'm arguing that the distinction of what belongs in school and what belongs at home isn't nearly as clear as we believe it to be.
quote:CHAPTER V.
Section 2.--The Encouragement of Literature, etc.
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, adn grammar-schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, and good humor, and all social affections and generous sentiments, among the people.
[ April 15, 2005, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are back to being fuzzy, noncommittal and dismissive all at the same time. I knew the clarity was too good to last. *sigh*
The reason we have technique at school and moral education at home is because we are not a state that is willing to relinquish the ideology of our children to the government. In order for your argument to work, you have to come up with a clear and convincing reason to do so.
Posted by WigginWinning (Member # 7811) on :
while it's true that the media does attempt to perpetuate the myth of skinny-beauty, there are few people i know that'd say that out loud. Most people i know are put off by overly thin women.
The question i have is whether or not replacing "slimness" with "a certain chubbiness" is really just robbing peter to pay paul. The problem is the identification of beauty and the localization of it within certain (ANY) narrowly defined parameters. The whole concept of beauty itself is a delimitting one. It seeks to identify and in doing so, exclude. Regardless of what criteria you choose, the project itself is inherently fascist.
And it's just Media; who gives a darn what the media says anyway? If people are going to pattern their behavior based on media-propogated notions of whatever, then there's really not much we can do for these people anyway.
The real trick is to try to get to a place where we either don't dwell too much on beauty at all, or any other fascistly delimiting characterizations for that matter.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The reason we have technique at school and moral education at home is because we are not a state that is willing to relinquish the ideology of our children to the government.
I don't think that's the case. It's more murky. Look at the excerpt from the Mass constitution. The problem is, and this is big, saying that moral inquiry doesn't belong in public school is making a positive unsubstantiated statement, especially if one makes that argument that children ought to attend and do well in studying technique. Taking moral inquiry out of public education degrades the institution for all of those who don't worship science, rendering the curriculum irrelevant, and my argument is that that's the reason for the "achievement" gap.
quote:In order for your argument to work, you have to come up with a clear and convincing reason to do so.
No, I don't. It's true, you are in a privileged position, and you have the advantage of being on the side of "common sense," but it doesn't mean that it's at all appropriate. I think you are influenced by the same "common sense" that's led to the gap.
[ April 15, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, Irami, do you really think that we should listen to advice given without "clear and convincing" reasons? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you reject the need for clear and convincing reasons, then you expect people to follow plans of action based on something else.
Should we listen to you because you smell nice, then?
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
quote: No, I don't.
*Blinks*
Why not?
I am still, after slogging through 11 pages of argument, mystified as to how math and science can be considered irrelevant to all but mathematicians and scientists. I am not in a hard science field, horsemanship, and the math and science required of us is base line, but I see my fellow students struggling with it because of inadequate preparation at the high school level.
If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that math and science create a preference for concrete, easy, black-and-white answers, but the more I learn in science, the less I find that this is true. Every discovery leads to more questions, and there is always always ALWAYS the possibility of any given theory, no matter how well backed, to be proven wrong.
I think it’s kinda funny that this conversation is happening on a message board for fans of an SF writer. Aren’t SF readers science geeks?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You have to admit, Irami DOES smell nice.
I mean that platonically.
Erm. . . no, wait. I don't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, I don't. It's true, you are in a privileged position, and you have the advantage of being on the side of "common sense," but it doesn't mean that it's at all appropriate. I think you are influenced by the same "common sense" that's led to the gap.
We're in the Matrix!
Posted by Ele (Member # 708) on :
Personally, I wonder why folks in our society are so obsessed about appearance at all. I'm sure it's some kind of subliminal reproductive-messaging instinct, but it kind of seems to me that one thing we should try to do is exceed that instinct and make some intellectual and spiritual progress. I don't mean this to sound trendy (because if there's anything I'm NOT it's "trendy"), but weight is more of a qualifier for celebrity than it is for greatness, don't you think? And our obsession with celebrity is about as unhealthy as anything I ever saw. I think it's the reason that Lennon said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus." I don't think he meant "wiser" or "greater" or "more important." I think he was referring to the fact that the fans chased them into bathroom stalls! ~Ele
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
We have strange and conflicted markers about personal appearance in out society because our self-presentation actually can serve several purposes and be shaped by many influences.
1. Reproductive markers: Females choose tall, strong, bold males to provide genes that will enhance the survival of their children. Males choose markers of fecundity (when they're not just choosing "anything I can get"), like large breasts, etc. These are themes that keep recurring because they're at the baboon level, almost independent of culture.
2. Success markers: Females (and some males) choose males with markers that signify wealth, which indicates (unconsciously) a greater likelihood of offspring having enough to eat AND advantages to enhance their reproductive chances; OR success markers simply promise an easier, safer life for oneself. Recent ones: A healthy tan, a "cut" body.
3. Social entry markers: You dress and present yourself with the markers that say "I am in this group" (I.e: rich; goth; athlete; gay; fashion-conscious cool; preppie; intellectual; above all this; Hasid; Amish; serious businessman; etc.)
4. Inadvertent social markers: An attempt to simulate any of the above, but with inadvertent errors that signal to those really in the know that these are wannabes who seriously need to be put down. (A huge subset: adolescenets trying to simulate adult markers and failing, thereby reliably labeling themselves as young and naive.) Examples: A sprayed-on tan, which suggests you don't really have the leisure time of a wealthy person, but wish to fake it; moves you into the how-sad category.
5. Hereditary markers: Can't help lookin' like the folks.
6. Health markers: which we often try to hide, lest people KNOW our ailments and find us unattractive (acne; eczema; herpes; psoriasis; nail fungus; cold symptoms; anything that makes us seem unhealthy makes us less attractive to others). We also attempt to fake good-health markers: Red lips, rosy cheeks, even body fat in some eras and cultures; long lustrous hair, etc.
7. Authority markers: Anything that helps us get our way - but most societies have very stiff penalties, social or otherwise, for faking authority (and getting caught).
And so on.
One marker that ALWAYS trumps the others, given enough time: Genuine happiness and concern for others. If you show that you care about other people and radiate contentment, then even if you have NONE of the other markers, people will seek your company, and some of them will even seek reproductive activities. This is what women REALLY mean when they say they like "a man with a sense of humor." But it is also one of the real markers of attractiveness in women, which men rarely mention but usually act on: A woman who is happy and content with herself will find men who are able to relax in her company and, I have observed, eventually some find such women attractive. I have seen many happy marriages between otherwise unattractive (by any standard measure) people, but they ARE attractive because they are so ham dappy.
[ April 18, 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
One social marker of deep-seated emotional neediness: Weirdly long posts.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
But we love you anyway!
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Also, resurrecting long dead threads that should DIE ALREADY. Because they got so terribly derailed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It could just be the social marker of an insomniac. AJ
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: 1. Reproductive markers: Females choose tall, strong, bold males to provide genes that will enhance the survival of their children. Males choose markers of fecundity (when they're not just choosing "anything I can get"), like large breasts, etc. These are themes that keep recurring because they're at the baboon level, almost independent of culture.
2. Success markers: Females (and some males) choose males with markers that signify wealth, which indicates (unconsciously) a greater likelihood of offspring having enough to eat AND advantages to enhance their reproductive chances; OR success markers simply promise an easier, safer life for oneself. Recent ones: A healthy tan, a "cut" body.
Interesting that it seems men are more attracted to long term traits and women more attracted to passing fads. But then, the mother/dauther line can only alter itself once per generation at the time of egg formation (which is generally held to occur prenatally) whereas men generate variation throughout their lifecycle.
Most of the fads in female appearance tend to come not from men wanting partners as much as women being used to sell things to women. Which may or may not involve them looking like men. Leanness, dark lashes/brows, and a pathetic lack of color coordination all scream "male" to me. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Males choose markers of fecundity (when they're not just choosing "anything I can get"), like large breasts, etc. These are themes that keep recurring because they're at the baboon level, almost independent of culture.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Breasts as sexually attractive parts of a woman's body are such a fundamental part of western sexuality that it's natural for a member of that society to assume that it's an inherent something that men are attracted to. There are cultures where the breasts are completely incedental though. They might be appreciated in the same way a male in our culture appreciates, say, the curve of a woman's back, but not in any kind of a primary way. I actually think that almost every single thing that people find sexually attractive is learned. People have an inherent drive to find physical characteristics sexually arousing, but which characteristics those happen to be are dictated--not totally, but to a huge degree--by the culture the person finds themselves in.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Another possible explanation for attraction to sense of humor is that it is a sign of intelligence. Sense of humor isn't a particularly useful survival trait, but it does indicate a highly useful survival trait.
Noemon has a good point that breasts are less important in other cultures. After all, even small breasts are usually sufficient for feeding babies (so I am told). I suspect, though, that the waist-to-hip ratio, which is supposed to be strongly correlated with fertility, is closer to universal among humans.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I suspect, though, that the waist-to-hip ratio, which is supposed to be strongly correlated with fertility, is closer to universal among humans.
I agree. Another stand-out fertility marker is the arch of a woman's brow--the more arch, the more estrogen, and the more likely the woman's fertile. I mentioned it in thread back in '03.
I always wondered why I was so fascinated by women's eyebrows.
Estrogen and testosterone levels both shape male and female faces, before and during adolescence.
Of course, culture plays a role in selecting markers. But some are pure biology. One of the best and most instinctive health markers is bilateral symmetry--the more symmetrical a face and body, the more likely that person is healthy, for various reasons.
This is one of the foundations of human perception of beauty, IMO.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I wish Anne Kate were here--she's got great insights into this subject. It was a post of hers that swung me from thinking that a lot of this stuff was inherent to thinking that most of it was societal in origin.
Interesting about the arch of the brow thing Morbo--didn't know that. It'd be interesting to see a well designed study with subjects from a wide array of cultures to see if highly arched brows=more sexually attractive in the eyes of all the subjects.
I suspect you're right about attraction to symmetry being a human universal.
Posted by Aunty Eem (Member # 7743) on :
Wow its still going! I checked just to see. Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
Someone tried to tell me that I like old men because thier age was an indication of their ability to survive. I think it's because I'm stupid and psychotic because it's cool to be stupid and psychotic. Neurosis: The New Pink
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
You know, in reading OSC's post above, it hit me again why I think I reread his books over and over. The little life observations interspersed throughout that you can feel in your gut, but never thought to put into words until one of his characters comes along and phrases it in a nice neat index card that I can file in my brain and quote later at my leisure. "Sometimes lies were more dependable than the truth"
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Hobbes![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
If I would have, it would merely have been because the image fits so perfectly. There ought to be a story about you in the book I have by my bed, Turn the Other Chick. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
It works for me! ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
~Ele
![[Cool]](cool.gif)