Having actual debates with the argument and feedback from debates helps you get better–much more than a simple surprise will. Relying on surprise is a one-trick pony and one that takes WAY more effort than actually figuring out the. Read that sentance again 10 times and internalize it–and act on it.
If you look at health, disease models, strength training, hegels dialectic, or almost any model with opposing forces (especially when those opposing forces have to collide multiple times)–it helps to be less secretive with your team.
Perhaps you can encourage the coach or the team to have a more reciprocal evidence sharing on the squad or you can trade for arguments on the squad (something to encourage more openness).
Se also: open source debate argument.
Your assumption seems to be that if something is failing or ineffective we should abandon it completely. I think this obscures a vast range of options.
This is an argument for a common language by Monty Python
There are many other examples of the miscommunication or warped communication which might result from having radically different standards/rules/norms.
You will also want a rant/overview which explains the quote–and unpacks the full meaning.
You still probably have to turn their -ism (racism, sexism)–because they will use that to indict your particular type of education from an ideological perspective.
Arguably….this is a bit of a straw person, but despite that it demonstrates the fundamental need at a fundamental level to have common rules of the road in terms of communication for both education and transformation–particularly when we are persuading others to take action.
This proves their model is flawed at a foundational level–it also proves that the skills and education derived may be severly curtailed or destroyed.
Are there other allegories, metaphors, or clips which make this same argument?
1) Missions
–benchmarking, etc..
2) Youth Employment
3) University
——————————————
I need something to make money. Side gig.
Maybe because the money is better spent educating kids so they stay out of poverty and become tax payers so they can support the next generation? And because the logical extension of that argument is pretty much armed guards and guns everywhere for defense–not to mention perhaps a liberalization of gun policies around dangerous areas (ie places that serve alcohol). What would it be like to be in a parent-teacher meeting when the parent gets angry if they happen to have their gun on them (post legal change). I don’t want to be Israel thank you very much. I too wish we lived in a place where we would invest more effective dollars in our kids so that we had a better tomorrow. I just think that investment should be in a slightly different place.
I wonder what I will think of this passage in 8 years (written in Dec 2012):
The following seems to lack any distinctions or nuance which takes into account differences among theologians or what the New Testament says or what Jesus actually said. I would expect a higher level analytical & fact-based precision from a philosopher, rather than borderline hate speech against any entire class of people. If I said all academics were small minded and evil or all philosophers were small minded and evil–I suspect you might feel somewhat the same. Its the same kinds of over-generalizations which give rise to sexism, racism, and any other number of -isms. There’s simply no need to be hurtful.
There’s actually a great deal of diversity among theologians and actually a lot of love–but I guess its easier to throw stones from inside the walls of academic bunker–rather than seek out disconfirming proofs. Certainly, if you go out looking for fundamentalist or even cynical Christians–you’ll probably find them. But, I’m sure Texas has dozens of hippie churches:
In a strange way, we thus become the mirror image of the theologians, yet with the caveat that where they can commit by virtue of their belief in a transcendent term– a horrific God that would condemn trillions to eternal suffering –we can say nothing. Like the theologians we find sin in everything, seeing all as fallen. Like the theologians or the fundamentalist freaks of today, we discard all science as really being masked strategems of power, of interest, that are ultimately constructed and without any truth.
To many, including me, the fundamentalist principle of the bible is founded in the Jesus–the Sermon on the Mount–and the call to love.
It would seem your critique of the church–in its own selectivity and cynicism may just be hoisted on its own petard.
(link)
It seems odd to me that someone would posit freedom versus wisdom….or innovation versus history.
The status quo isn’t always bad.
Systems for Leadership & Marketing
• Seven Habits of Highly Effective People Stephen Covey
• John Maxwell Leadership
• Leadership Challenge Couzes
• Predictable Success
Entrepreneur Mastermind Groups
• Dan Kennedy (GKIC)
• Gazelle
• Entrepreneurs Organization (EO)
• Vistage
• Various Associations in Coaching & Consulting
• Human Performance Institute (HPI)
Various Christian Organizations
don’t see how the 4 forces argument excludes other explanations–it only justifies those existing 4. Your argument is that physics doesn’t fully understand (or have categories for) free will or consciousness–not that it doesn’t exist.
Your explanation at the top seems to be “common sense explanations of choice” are different from how we typically view them–not a denial of free choice or free will.
Its probably not quite fair comparison–but I would imagine that math (although probability and outliers might find hints)–equally would have problems finding identity, choice, etc…
———
By definition an “I” or an imagination seems beyond physics and physical force. The brain seems like too powerful, too dynamic an organism to be governed solely by the laws of physics. The brain from personal experience and just the fundamental cause and effect of brains suggest this.
If I’m not mistaken (and I very well may be), but that seems to suggest that if it doesn’t show up on an fMRI it doesn’t exist (or certainly pretty close). Why can’t we think about it like a black box–and theorize it as we really understand it–as a bit of a black box–a black box which seems to show signs of different kinds of physicality than we are used to outside the context of the brain, identity, consciousness, etc..
The second line seems more like a thought experiment than a claim about reality.
It would seem that your stance might be physicalism or reductive physicalism:
Physicalism (ok after reading the Stanford version it might not be a reductive physicalism, but it seems hand in hand with other types of methodological reductionism)
I think the suitcase metaphor might be helpful here–in terms of the scientific/non-scientific dichotomy. It confuses me that reductionist interpretations which sees science as rigid tool rather than selective, context specific, and temporally relevant. Science is quick to cut off the clothing that falls from inside to outside–excluding it entirely.
In terms of duality–you can deny duality–and yet accept the identities as distinct, but not a polarity. For instance, you might criticize the self/other dichotomy, but still ultimately say that acting in terms of a self is still important. (i.e. the boundaries are distinct, sure, but permeable).
What are the best books on negotiation?
1. Getting to Yes, Ury and Fisher
2. Almost anything by the Harvard Negotiation Project (ie Fisher or William Ury)
3. Bargaining for Power: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People
4. Negotiation Genius: How to Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table, Deepak Molhotra, Max Bazerman
5. Art of Woo
6. Getting More
7. Heart and Mind of a Negotiator, Leigh L. Thompson
8. Beyond Reason
And there are a number of immenently practical and brass tacks negotiation books which may prove helpful.
1. Co-create, feedback.
2. Listening, understanding, and empathizing.
3. Doing life with. (meals, etc..)
4. Open approach and orientation. Low pressure. (a posture of help and service)
5. Creating meaning with.
6. Sharing human, life, and family stories/experiences
7. Healing division.
8. Spiritual mission/spiritual leader
9. Helping the helpless.
10. Integrity, honesty, authenticity.
11. Good will. Becoming a hero.
12. Scarcity.
13. Enemy. (Key differentiator versus the competition or what the customer perceives as the alternative)
14. Archetype, story
15. Wisdom, Expertism. (mostly wisdom. expertism could be alienating)
16. Rhetoric of we
17. Human experiences–suffering, joy, etc…
18] Reciprocity.
19. Objects
20. Mirroring non-verbals and rhetoric.
1) Jesus Proof
2) Bonhoffer
3) Story
4) Something for Teens/Middle School
Substance: general nature of a thing
Consubstantiation: (shared substance, commonality)
Identification: (same as consub) degrees of; conscious or unconscious;
1) material identification—goods, possessions, things
2) idealistic identification—values, ideas, feelings, attitudes
3) formal identification—form or arrangement of
act/conventions; roles, customs, etc.
Division—differences with others (source of guilt)
PENTAD
Tool for understanding motives
Act
Scene Agent
Agency Purpose
(Hexad: Attitude: delayed or incipient action)
Statement of motives will answer: What was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how it was done (agency), and why it was done (purpose).
Source: link
Religion, at least the Christian religion is certainly no more the opiate of the masses than any other ideology or institution. Is fitness the opiate of the masses? Is nutrition the opiate of the masses? Is rock music and cable television the opiate of the masses? Is addiction the opiate of the masses? Is yoga the opiate of the masses? Plus, Christianity helps you put all the other ones in proper perspective.
Knowledge
1. Feedback
2. Integrated data/Real time data/Up to date data
3. Secrets
4. Summary
5. Projectsions, Commentary on trends/data
6. Models, Visual Representations, Rubrics, Criteria
7. A focus on process
Service delivery:
I can see why you’d think or say that….but if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture–its an answer that makes more sense.
Answering it at the very level of the question….seems to try to answer the question from the level of humans. You have to answer the question from the level of God….or at least above or on a deeper level.
Daniel is answering the question….just not in the way you want him to. He’s answering it at the assumptive and worldview level. Those are the very grounds and fundamentals of where the question came from….not considering those is a failure to answer the question.
God made possible ethics and morality. There isn’t any possibility for them outside him. The very existence of ethics points toward God.
Ultimately, Daniel answered the spirit of the question–the core question that was being asked.
Systems of thought are not facts or math…..as much as they are rivers and systems like trees. Daniel is talking about the deep roots….you are talking about an individual leaf. Its still answering the question of why the tree & what makes up the tree & how does it function?
Rosetta Stone
Code Breakers WWII
Astronomy/Telescope
Hubble Telescope
Glasses
X-Men
Sage/Gandolf or Karate Kid or Biblical parallel
GPS
Map
Maze vs. Map
Explorers (their tools–ie on a boat)
Yep, if humans are robots or brains in a bag—everything we care about from rights and freedom to human dignity to justice and responsibility are absolutely and totally undermined.
Its ironic that the group that claims to stand for “freedom” is so anti-thetical to it in terms of determinism and relativism (and ultimately undermining any possibility of value or meaningful goals).
They write books to brains in a bag or robots. That makes total sense.
—
The argument is that if you accept his premise not just things you care about, but everything you care about it undermined. Everything that you could hope to have meaning and purpose is undermined. You don’t have a moral justification for freedom or rights and you don’t have a moral justification for human dignity (or anything you value).
Also, when forced to choose between two things that you’re not sure about—this serves as a pretty good tie breaking argument.
Not to mention putting on display the utter incoherence of the argument itself. If atheism claims to protect freedom and dignity this points out that taking some of its core premises seriously means that it is roasted on its on pitard.
If we are robots, everything about the academy, Maslow’s hierarchy, our legal system, and our ways of treating people collapses.
Any risk that we have freedom or free will or agency or autonomy—means his argument is wrong. He has to win 100% determinism.
Do you think we’re robots? Do you treat yourself as a robot? Which philosophy do you life by?
I’m glad I’ve never had to make this decision. Those who have to make this decision are certainly making what is an incredibly hard decision.
I think we can agree if we can prevent this decision or even from happening—without any impact on the mother—that we’d be better off as a society (specifically fewer negative repurcussions from unwanted pregnancies and abortions, specifically).
Many pro-life supporters accept the limit of rape.
Many pro-life supporters would say these are less than ideal.
One of the usual lines of someone attempting to justify the procedure:
* Its a choice, but that ignores the opportunity of the cost and the inability of the person or organism to speak or defend themselves. This is why the 14th Amendment, which is the equal protection clause has been used to defend the rights of the unborn.
* The second line of thinking often uses it “the women has no other choice.” However, there are alternatives. If they are in a toxic relationship, they can move or get help from the YWCA. They can also work with an adoption agency. They don’t have to raise the kid. So there are in fact other options.
* Or its “just like other health care procedures.” Which isn’t correct. There are unique aspects of the procedure that are distinct to the nature of abortion and how it impacts anothers existence and life without that other having the chance to do anything about it at all.
They would also probably say that life is life.
There is a certain truth to that statement, I tend to use heart beat of the baby or the survivability out of the womb as two middle ground criteria which we don’t usually seem to apply. States seem to have arbitrary justifications for the length of time which have almost nothing to do with the survivability or medical status of the baby.
Its also unfortunate that much of what goes on gets masked in euphemistic rhetoric, such that the brutality of the procedure gets overlooked.
Specifically week 6 a heartbeat is detectable via ultrasound. Many states allow abortions in the 12 week I believe.
And research from the National Institutes of Health points out that a baby can be viable at 20 weeks:
*A **new study* (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1410689)* published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 7 examined how hospitals differ in whether and how they treat extremely premature babies, starting at 22 weeks. Proponents of the bill say this study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, shows that the babies who would be saved through the 20-week abortion ban could now be considered viable. Some media reports also echoed the same conclusions.*
22 weeks presents an even further justification for limits, even as the limit is often at 24 week:
*Researchers found that 22 percent of the babies born at 22 weeks received active treatment, and hospitals varied in their whether and how they gave treatment to babies born between 22 and 27 weeks. There were 78 babies born at 22 weeks who received aggressive treatment. Among them, 18 of them survived (23 percent) to toddler age. Seven (9 percent) of them did not have severe or moderate impairment by the time they were toddlers.*
*That babies can survive at 22 weeks is not a new finding; it has been known for 15 years, Rysavy said.*
Its worth noting that the same criteria we use in climate change discussions, that of the precautionary principle seems to apply here, except to an even greater extent. It would seem that if ANY baby is viable, that that should be the criteria to be on the safe side. So that if 10 to 20% survive, that we should act in the interest of preserving those possible lives.
Source: First Trimester – American Pregnancy Association (http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/first-trimester/)
State regulations on abortion:
1. Abortion laws by state (https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/abortion-laws-by-state/297/)
2. An Overview of Abortion Laws (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws)
- Question
- Story
- Culture/Art
- History (Data)
- Metaphor/Analogy
- Defining/Clarifying (the issue, reality). How do we define Jesus? How do we define church? How do we define Christianity?
- Purpose
- Big picture
- Context
- Assumption-worldview (including limits)
- Wisdom (aka quote)
- How the universe works (experience of human life, experience of the human species)
- What counts as knowledge (really an assumption/worldview)
- Art of distinction/nuance (paying attention to details–paying attention to similarities and differences)
- Identify logical fallacy (Strawperson, Misconception, or Myth)
- Focus the mind of the listener
- Empathy
- Confession. I’m not perfect. We’re not perfect.
- Forgiveness (I need forgiveness, we need forgiveness)
- Sensory Experience Visual, Auditory
- Position against Pain/Reality of Culture (background of culture)
- Implicate/Crystalize/Amplification/Communicate significance
- SUCCESS (Example, concreteness). Concreteness versus abstraction (relativism)
I need an acronymn for a pattern.
I’m not sure. Thats above my pay grade. My best guess is. Thats an interesting question, but periferal. Sin, Inevitability Judgement, and Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
What are the most common misconceptions about Christianity?
Sample Arguments and Objections:
Compassion in Politics: Christian Social Entrepreneurship, Education Innovation, & Base of the Pyramid/BOP Solutions 