We commonly rank motives from high to low, and distinguish “cynics,” who ascribe low motives to common behaviors, from “idealists,” who ascribe high motives. Official propaganda tends to be idealistic, including what we teach in
I like that Robin didn't even consider the most obvious explanation for his students' comments: that his analysis was asinine and full of needless sexual innuendo.
You think it is hilarous that students feel bad in a course?
It is most probably an issue with the teaching style being unsuitable and them learning to be averse to the subject matter by associating the distaste of the lecturer to the topic.
One thing that might confuse people in the selfish thing is:"selfish" == "optimizes own utility function"vs"selfish" == "the term for other people is small in the utility function"
Much of the disagreement whether people are selfish stems from the two very different definitions.
"Too many sexual innuendos", "felt uncomfortable" etc. - hilarious. Pampered worldview under fire and raising the emotional barricades, one supposes. Probably also ignorance of the actual meaning of "innuendo" is at work as well.
I think this is more complicated than it seems. Once again, all I am providing is anecdotal evidence. I have been living in US since 1992, but I did visit Russia on occasion over the period of last 10 years. I see two trends. On the one hand, most Russians believe that Americans are stupid for believing the US 'propaganda. On the other hand, the majority of Russians clearly believe the Putin propaganda, part of which, ironically, is that Americans are idiots. Go figure.
Where is this Nietzsche quote from? Not that the sentiment is out of place for him, but I find it odd to hear a nineteenth century philosopher using the term 'sucker,' which is more post-freudian vernacular (though Nietzsche was a big influence on Freud).
Economics reasoning has become very popular (freakonomics, etc.) and the profession has imperial designs for applying its methodology in other (content-defined) fields.
There may be some reasons per Buck's observation why "we don’t teach sociobiology, economics, social sciences (in their modern form) before college generally."
The reason sociobiology is not taught in high school: YOU would have to talk about Darwinian evolution, treat people as animals, etc. The Christian right would be down your throat. If you go to college and want to learn that, fine, or you could go to a good theological seminary and not learn about it at all.
Economics is taught in high school, and it is classical economics. And, it is malthusian. And, it does question the minimum wage. But, what it doesn't do is talk about behavioural economics.
Social sciences in their modern form: ??? The only criticism I would have of social sciences in high school was that they glossed over racism and slavery when I was young. You mean the Civil War wasn't over states rights? I'll be dammed.
We like idealism about us, and cynicism about them. Econ-cynicism is more about everyone, but more acceptable cynicism is about a bad them who the new us will overthrow, bringing peace and prosperity across the land.
I like that Robin didn't even consider the most obvious explanation for his students' comments: that his analysis was asinine and full of needless sexual innuendo.
It seems more likely that they are learning to be averse to the teacher by associating the distaste of the topic to the lecturer.
You think it is hilarous that students feel bad in a course?
It is most probably an issue with the teaching style being unsuitable and them learning to be averse to the subject matter by associating the distaste of the lecturer to the topic.
One thing that might confuse people in the selfish thing is:"selfish" == "optimizes own utility function"vs"selfish" == "the term for other people is small in the utility function"
Much of the disagreement whether people are selfish stems from the two very different definitions.
"Too many sexual innuendos", "felt uncomfortable" etc. - hilarious. Pampered worldview under fire and raising the emotional barricades, one supposes. Probably also ignorance of the actual meaning of "innuendo" is at work as well.
I knew all along that Nietzsche was totally gay, but it turns out he was man enough to admit it in the very title of his book! Cool guy.
This is the real Nietzsche quote.
You make a lot of sense in these comments. You should start a blog.
I think this is more complicated than it seems. Once again, all I am providing is anecdotal evidence. I have been living in US since 1992, but I did visit Russia on occasion over the period of last 10 years. I see two trends. On the one hand, most Russians believe that Americans are stupid for believing the US 'propaganda. On the other hand, the majority of Russians clearly believe the Putin propaganda, part of which, ironically, is that Americans are idiots. Go figure.
Where is this Nietzsche quote from? Not that the sentiment is out of place for him, but I find it odd to hear a nineteenth century philosopher using the term 'sucker,' which is more post-freudian vernacular (though Nietzsche was a big influence on Freud).
Guess:
Economics reasoning has become very popular (freakonomics, etc.) and the profession has imperial designs for applying its methodology in other (content-defined) fields.
There may be some reasons per Buck's observation why "we don’t teach sociobiology, economics, social sciences (in their modern form) before college generally."
The reason sociobiology is not taught in high school: YOU would have to talk about Darwinian evolution, treat people as animals, etc. The Christian right would be down your throat. If you go to college and want to learn that, fine, or you could go to a good theological seminary and not learn about it at all.
Economics is taught in high school, and it is classical economics. And, it is malthusian. And, it does question the minimum wage. But, what it doesn't do is talk about behavioural economics.
Social sciences in their modern form: ??? The only criticism I would have of social sciences in high school was that they glossed over racism and slavery when I was young. You mean the Civil War wasn't over states rights? I'll be dammed.
We like idealism about us, and cynicism about them. Econ-cynicism is more about everyone, but more acceptable cynicism is about a bad them who the new us will overthrow, bringing peace and prosperity across the land.
Hmm, which of our beliefs are like "insulting the meat"? Interesting book link.
I defined cynical in the post's first sentence.
In all seriousness, I have some clues but I really struggle to understand the hate. Which is why I asked, and keep asking.