Archive for December, 1998

The Perks Of Inteligence

This is a table that I ran across in a special issue of Scientific American that I got for Christmas.

Taken from Scientific American Presents Exploring Intelligence published first quarter of 1999. Adapted in an article entitled “The General Intelligence Factor” by Linda S. Gottfredson from material presented in Intelligence; Volume 24, Issue 1 (January/February 1997.)

Life Chances High Risk Uphill Battle Keeping Up Out Ahead Yours To Lose
Career Potential Assembler, food service, nurse’s aide Clerk, teller, police officer, machinist, sales Manager, teacher, accountant Attorney, chemist, executive
IQ < 75 75 – 90 90 – 110 110 – 125 > 125
Total population distribution 5% 20% 50% 20% 5%
Out of the labor force more than one month of the year (men) 22% 19% 15% 14% 10%
Unemployed more than one month of the year (men) 12% 12% 7% 7% 2%
Divorced in five years 21% 22% 23% 15% 9%
Had illegitimate children (women) 32% 17% 8% 4% 2%
Lives in poverty 30% 16% 6% 3% 2%
Ever incarcerated (men) 7% 7% 3% 1% 0%
Chronic welfare recipient (mothers) 31% 17% 8% 2% 0%
High school dropout 55% 35% 6% 0.4% 0%

Leave a Comment

bq: ontological parity

Some lead ins before reading.

  1. I like the general idea though I disagree with their summary statement of “What I know is no better than what you know, only different.” I think that ties closer to a Perry 3 multiplicity than anything else. All ideas are not equal.
  2. This ties in well extension of ego boundaries and what I was attempting to say yesterday about a universality of humankind.
  3. The terms rhetorical communication and existential communication are used. Existential communication is a special case of rhetorical communication. Rhetorical communication as a class is concerned with the process of persuasion. We assume a variety of roles as rhetorical methods of persuasion so as to get our needs met. The purpose of rhetorical communication is to persuade. Existential communication is the case where the need to be met is the self-actualizing need to fully and honestly express who we are to another person.

So without further ado, ontological parity…

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

j: wanderings on reading psychology

It seems like most of my journals as of late lack a specific focus. I have so many things on my mind and none of them seem quite like what I am hunting for.

I have been reading a book that was used as a textbook at UTK. I am guessing that it was a psychology textbook. It combines an explanation of psychological models with exercises to allow the student to apply them to her life. (It uses the female form of the ambiguous pronoun like J did in the handbook chapter. It still throws me to read it.) At the same time it is also conducting a synthetic process developing a new model that combines aspects of all of what they are presenting.

I am liking the book though I am reading it alot faster than I usually read and I am not retaining anywhere as near as much information as I usually do.

The last chapter was entitled “The Internal Rhetorical Wrangle.” One of the basic premises of the book is that people are rhetorical creatures and that they attempt to persuade one another through different means.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

purpose of the book that I am reading

I just finished the first chapter of the book that I was mentioning earlier, A Rhetoric of Interpersonal Communication and Relationships, and the first chapter, which is an introductory one, ends like this:

“Our task in this book is to assist you in understanding and developing the kind of relationships advocated in the gestalt “prayer.”

               I do my thing
             and you do your thing
           I am not in this world to
                live up to your
               expectations, and
           you are not in this world
              to live up to mine.
             You are you and I am I
              and if by chance we
                find each other
                it's beautiful.

                 (Perls, 1976)

Leave a Comment

definition of gestalt

Main Entry: ge-stalt

Pronunciation: g&-‘stält, -‘shtält, -‘stolt, -‘shtolt

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural ge-stalt-en /-‘stäl-t&n, -‘shtäl-, -‘stol-, -‘shtol-/; or gestalts

Etymology: German, literally, shape, form

Date: 1922

: a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts

Leave a Comment

q: R.D. Laing

How many times can the word experience be used in one sentence?

=) -Will

From R.D. Liang’s The Politics of Experience (1967) pages 4-5.

“I cannot experience your experience. You cannot experience my experience.

“I cannot avoid trying to understand your experience, because although I do not experience your experience, which is invisible to me (and nontestable, nontouchable, nonsmellable, and inaudible), yet I experience you as experiencing.

“I do not experience your experience. But I experience you as experiencing. I experience myself as experienced by you. And I experience you as experiencing yourself as experience by me. And so on.

“The study of the experience of others is based upon inferences I make, from my experience of you experiencing me, about how are experiencing me experiencing you experiencing me…”

Leave a Comment

sj: pondering Schultz

i am reading a book that i found at Mckay’s a while back called A Rhetoric of Interpersonal Communication and Relationships. One of the things that I was reading about today is a model created by a guy named William C. Shultz concerning interpersonal needs.

The most basic need is inclusion; we need to feel as though we are part of a group. Then comes control where we influence the lives of other people and we allow them to influence ours. Finally is affection where we express our caring for other people and we desire to have them see us as loveable.

All relationships fulfill some or all of the desires. The desires are incremental so that the most basic is a part of all of them (a relationship that meets affections needs is by necessity also meeting control and inclusion needs.)

Relationships are of types. People who you know who you have a general acquaintance with, but with whom you do not do things with or attempt to influence, these people are simply meeting inclusion needs. (“How are you doing today?, me, i’m doing pretty good.”)

Relationships where you influence each other decision making processes actively (“Hey, you want to go to a movie?” or “Could you help me with something that is bothering me?”) these are meeting control needs.

Relationships where you are expressing yourself emotionally and bringing more of your affective processes into play, these are affection needs. These types of relationships are usually reserved for family members, close friends, and significant others.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

q: mlk's nobel prize acceptance speech

… I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him.

I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.

I believe that even amid today’s motor bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.

“And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.”

I still believe that we shall overcome.

This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born…”

–Martin Luther King, from his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

December 10, 1964

Oslo, Norway

Leave a Comment

necessity of models

On what T sent out talking about hiding behind the models like Perry and Kohlberg and wanting to put his experiences into more universal language, I want to defend the models some.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

re: intuitive dodges

This is in relation to the conversation that was sparked by T’s journal on the importance of detail.

I was thinking about this a little while back because I am fairly SJ when I am being philosophical and I like to have reasons backing up what I am dealing with.

I kept getting frustrated because with several people I kept getting the answer, “its just intuitive,” and I did not know what to do with it. I did not know what an intuitives mind worked like so I did not know what credence to give to that statement. I have never used it much and I have never really had a reason to, so I thought that maybe the person was doing some process that I was unaware of.

I did notice though that I would get the statement “it is just intuitive” alot when I was stating to make the person uncomfortable or when I was going up to the edge of where they had already though too.

On the whole it would grind any conversation to a halt because there was nothing to build on with that statement. It is the same as saying “just because” (it always annoyed the hell out of me when my parents would say that) =) or just proclaiming “fiat.”

I think that there is a distinction to be made between something being non-rational and something being intuitive. Wayne was crossing the two over when he was saying that something’s are not expressible through words, that is true, yes, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with intuition per se.

This is a point that I am trying to make in my ethics paper (may it burn in hell.) =) Why do I believe that it is better to love than to hate? Why is it better to live than to die? I cannot validate my choice of values rationally; my capacity to discern qualitative differences in values is something internal. My choice of values is based upon feeling, that is the only way that it can be; there is nothing external to myself which dictates that any values is greater or lesser than any other.

So, there will always come a point if you ask the question “why?” enough times where you are either running in circles or come to a fiat. At least if you are looking at motivation, actually this is also true for any rational system because all rational systems are based upon axioms that are true “just because.”

With something cognitive however, I think that the answer “it is just intuitive” is usually a cop out. Perhaps that is just my SJ bias coming out, but does awareness and mindfulness mean conscious awareness?

Also in motivational cases, it is very easy to say that “I just feel this way” and not examine the reasons underlying a feeling. It is true that systems are axiomatic and the value is non-rational, so it is impossible to come up with any universally right answers, but at the same time there is value in looking really hard.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »