I do something similar to Molly. Reading is largely about trying to fly with ideas for me, different to the day-to-day. I suspect most people in here would like anyone who wants to to be able to access universities. I'd do this by changing what the university is. What we have actually been doing seems to be madness. We are graduating half our population without increasing 'working smarter' jobs or even considering whether this is really possible - the probability is we are devaluing graduate advantage just as we force kids into large debt to get the qualifications. Finance, traditionally an unwanted cost against production and sales, now leeches massive amounts from production we used to retain as wages and liquid capital amongst our 50% least well off (this was about 20% of GDP when I left school ans is down to less than 1%). What I find in reading is consistent distraction from what really matters. There isn't much difference between watch mainstream news, whatever entertainment is on offer and the academic vanity publishing. It feels as though there is nothing to read or watch.
On 27 Dec, 23:19, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't agree on the body language or behavioural cues rigs - all the > tests done show we are about as reliable as the toss of a coin. The > people who are best at making us think we can read them are > psychopaths - three times more likely to secure parole from 'experts'. > > On 27 Dec, 09:15, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes the rich have more opportunities and exposure to make more > > wealth.. why would you say that is Rigsy?? Why are not these > > opportunities and exposure created for the poor? .. they are the ones > > that need it. or could it be part of the perks of worshiping at the > > feet of the golden calf?? > > Allan > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:49 AM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It may be the rich have more opportunities and exposure, Allan. Human > > > nature is human nature. Also, celebrity creates another kind of > > > challenge as the artist types gain fame and fortune- often to laugh at > > > their own popularity and adulation of the public and critics- Picasso > > > comes to mind, for instance- have a savage quote of his around here > > > somewhere. > > > > On Dec 25, 8:04 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Oddly I think you have a better chance for good ethics among the poor > > >> over the rich, > > >> Allan > > > >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > I wonder if the researchers took into account that a truly ethical > > >> > person > > >> > would not participate in the kind of rubbish that presents predictable > > >> > limited outcomes as fact. There may, indeed, be a correlation between > > >> > creativity and ethics, but I suspect it is more inclusive and requires > > >> > examination without the limits designed to define results. I keep > > >> > going back > > >> > to the model of spiral dynamics, one that allows and understands that > > >> > we all > > >> > move up and down and between memes during our lives given the > > >> > circumstances > > >> > of our experience. Someone who does not have enough money for food may > > >> > cheat in this experiment more than someone who has never known > > >> > financial > > >> > stress or hunger. Here is a pretty good explanation of the original > > >> > Graves > > >> > material, although I've seen better, its the best I could find online > > >> > this > > >> > morning.http://www.edumar.cl/documentos/SD_version_for_constellation5.pdf > > > >> > On Monday, December 24, 2012 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > >> >> A free paper with the ideas is at > > >> >>http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-064.pdf > > >> >> I was interested because I find professional ethics and religious > > >> >> morality collapse under circumstances of self-interest and become > > >> >> rationalisation. WE need creative solutions - but there is a dark > > >> >> side to creativity. > > > >> >> On 24 Dec, 22:03, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone — > > >> >> > Especially Ourselves" by Dan Ariely asks a seemingly simple > > >> >> > question — > > >> >> > “is dishonesty largely restricted to a few bad apples, or is it a > > >> >> > more > > >> >> > widespread problem?” — and goes on to reveal the surprising, > > >> >> > illuminating, often unsettling truths that underpin the > > >> >> > uncomfortable > > >> >> > answer. Like cruelty, dishonesty turns out to be a remarkably > > >> >> > prevalent phenomenon better explained by circumstances and cognitive > > >> >> > processes than by concepts like character. > > > >> >> > Work like this is challenging traditional economics - the genre is > > >> >> > 'behavioural economics'. My own take on this book and a lot of work > > >> >> > from brain science and history is that we are at a tipping point in > > >> >> > respect of the possibility of a human science. I'd like to see a > > >> >> > broader literature take up this challenge beyond current drivel on > > >> >> > black and white hats. > > > >> >> > So what are you guys reading? > > > >> > -- > > > >> -- > > >> ( > > >> ) > > >> |_D Allan > > > >> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > >> Of course I talk to myself, > > >> Sometimes I need expert advice..- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > |_D Allan > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > Of course I talk to myself, > > Sometimes I need expert advice.. --
