Now you kids play nice.
I wasn’t talking about education, I was talking about intelligence. In any case, we weren’t exactly taking basket weaving. I’d trust that you would consider very advanced physics, math, engineering and computer science classes an education.
You really think he chose to put down that sheep humping and worse was okay at one time and that it wasn’t another? Please give me your hypothesis on why he would change his answers if it was not his arousal? I can actually get a message to Ariely. and if you have a good idea maybe he’d repeat the experiment on poor Duke students.
We can often turn off our desires, but not always. This isn’t Vulcan, you know. There is tons of experimental evidence in support of the findings of behavioral economics - can you dispute it?
When I was finishing my MS, my advisor was trying to talk me into continuing grad school to get my PhD. At the time, there was a prof from a different university who was visiting for a week or so, and he jumped into the discussion and told me that I was obligated to pursue a PhD for the good of society.
I didn’t agree with that at all, largely because I didn’t believe (and still don’t) that the only way to be productive intellectually was to follow the academic path as far as possible. I can see both sides of the “obligation” side of the argument, though.
Regardless, for reasons other than societal obligation, I did end up continuing my academic training, but also intentionally stayed away from an academic career. I may, at some point, return to that venue, but for now it’s not for me.
That might be an education by the second definition in Random House, “the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession”. It’s less clear how it fairs by the first definition, “he act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life”.
However, the traditional understanding of an education is probably closer to this definition from Websters: “Education, properly a drawing forth, implies not so much the communication of knowledge as the discipline of the intellect, the establishment of the principles, and the regulation of the heart.”
By that final definition, it seems clear to me self-control is a necessary part of an education.
I believe you’re not responding to what I’m saying. Did I ever say that no one thinks differently when aroused? Obviously I said the opposite. Some people think differently when aroused. Others do not. An intelligent person can choose to develop self-control through wisdom and practice.
As for Ariely’s study, what does that prove? On average, people drop some inhibitions when they’re sexually aroused. That doesn’t mean that everyone does so. Some people do things that average people don’t do. The average person eats meat, but some do not.
I knew a few people who entered with their power of reasoning so well developed it didn’t need to get better. I wasn’t one of them. Most of us had to learn improve our reasoning ability, and we did it with constant exercise. I don’t know about regulation of the heart - I take pills for that now.
I think pretty much every student who doesn’t totally blow college learns a certain amount of self-control. No parent is telling you to do your homework, or even go to class. But everyone has periods of self control and periods of letting loose. That’s being human.
You have evidence that a significant number of people do not think differently under arousal? Human history argues otherwise. Do you have evidence that we can develop self control even with practice? To use an example because it is the first thing that springs to mind, not to be nasty, the priests who got into trouble were educated and trained to exercise self control but couldn’t. Politicians who espouse one course of action are sometimes driven to do the exact opposite. Hormones are powerful things, which have evolved to make us do certain things. You’re going to have to go beyond assertions if you are going to convince me that they can be easily conquered.
Like Forest Gump said (quoting his Mama) “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Why do I suspect that this is simply an excuse for being insubordinant in school or the workplace?
It’s generally not for you to decide who the “imposters” are among your authority figures. When you take a class or work at a job, you have entered into an agreement where you will respect the teacher or manager as a position (not person) of authority. When you fail to do so, they can enact their power and either fail you in the class or fire you. You also have the power to drop the class in favor of a better teacher or find a new job if you like.
Sigh Everyone reads Atlas Shrugged and assumes they are Henry Reardon and the rest of the world are the looters, parasites and imbeciles.
If you don’t owe anything to society then society owes you nothing. You owe society at least as much as you expect to take from it (otherwise you are a parasite or mooch). We all use public infrastructure and services so we all have to contribute in some way.
But it’s a free country. You are under no obligation to invent anything or even make it available to the public. Ideally you would find it financially and personally rewarding to do so though.
Dude…let it go.
oh no you di-int.
not that kind of mama
And the vastly larger number of priests who did not get into trouble trained themselves to exercise self-control and could. Millions of people throughout history have been able to practice chastity. Millions more have kept a lid on their sexual desires in certain situations. Since people do it, it is obviously possible. The fact that a few people fail in a few situations doesn’t change the fact. Some try to learn calculus and fail, but most who try succeed.
So, since many people do have their reasoning mind stay in control even when they’re experiencing sexual attraction, the only question is how they do it. To me it is obvious that they learn it the same way people learn any other skill: by study and by practice.
I’ve never said that they can be easily conquered. I’ve only said that they can be conquered.
In all cases, or only in some. Priests are self-selected for low sex drives, so it not that surprising that a vast majority are successful.
At least you agree that we have a natural proclivity to act differently when aroused. The success rate for any training to counter this needs to be shown. Examples are not too useful, since they would no doubt be self selected again - and we’d have to know for sure that no hanky panky was going on unknown to the pollster.
The philosopher Joseph Raz is probably the best deontological philosopher to deal with these kind of issues in my opinion. He holds that we owe reciprocal duties to each other to cultivate a minimum threshold of agency in each other - so that we can at least achieve the minimum threshold of mental capacity necessary for meaningful autonomy and moral agency. This is because our rationality isn’t binary, it depends on linguistic and cultural resources, which must be marshalled and supported to create our agency.
However, Raz rejects any kind of stronger claim than this on the basis that freedom includes the freedom not to fully self-realise. If morality really required everyone to do that, it would be like forcing everyone to maxi-min as a RPG munchkin power-gamer, and that’s a nullity of autonomy in the same way as never exercising your mind or reflecting, and simply drifting through life.
Compared to the people here I can be kind of dumb sometimes, but compared to people in my everyday life I’m pretty smart for analytical things. Not so much EQ things though.
I’ve found it best to offer my skills if people want advice and let em figure it out on their own if they don’t. Occasionally though you need to tell people what they don’t want to hear. Having bad EQ this can be hard to figure out when sometimes. By default all job and college related things get the maximum yield.