Saturday, April 25, 2009
Where British stoicism came from
A century ago, early children's literature wasn't enthusiastic about boosting kids' self esteem just for it's own sake. Child rearing had a grittier, more realistic feel to it, back then, and children's feelings weren't always spared. Here's a passage - and yes it's real - from the the ninetheeth century English children's book, "Lessons for Children Three to Four Years Old", by Anna Laetitia Aiken Barbould. n.p., as cited by cited by Susan Tyler Hitchcock in "Mad Mary Lamb", p135:
And mind you, back then children knew that unwanted kittens were commonly drowned, and may have seen the practice, too. No wonder narcissism and feelings of entitlement were less common then than now!
"Do you know why you are better than puss? Puss can play as well as you; and Puss can drink milk; and lie upon the carpet; and she can run as fast as you, and faster, too; a great deal; and she can climb trees better; and she can catch mice, which you cannot do. But can Puss talk? No. Can Puss Read? No. Then that is the reason that you are better than Puss - because you can talk and read . . . If you do not learn, Charles, you are not good for half as much as puss. You had better be drowned."
And mind you, back then children knew that unwanted kittens were commonly drowned, and may have seen the practice, too. No wonder narcissism and feelings of entitlement were less common then than now!
Friday, April 17, 2009
Uppity appliances advocated
re:
Attention-seeking objects will be hard to part with
17 April 2009
James Pierce at Indiana University in Bloomington is designing ways for objects to periodically make their presence felt, forcing us to "reflect" on them more often. He believes that this will increase our sense of attachment to our possessions, helping to end our unsustainable habit of constantly buying new things and dumping the old.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227045.700-attentionseeking-objects-will-be-hard-to-part-with.html
I'm very glad intelligent, creative people are taking a chance or two and trying to come up with new ways to put a few speed bumps in front of consumerism.
But I'm not sure misbehavior is the way. My father didn't keep his beaters around longer if they were especially temperamental - we all buy badly behaved or too hard to understand electronics and software, and then return it or shelve it, or garbage it.
Variable reinforcement seems like a better bet to me, appealing to the gambler in all of us - how about engraving a lottery ticket good for a hundred years into every consumer item. The ticket would be more likely to win the longer the "ticket" was still out there, a bit more likely every year. Then we could cling to our old toasters "just a little while longer" waiting for them to pay off. Of course, there could be unintended consequences, you might increase hoarding, or fuel consumerism. Learning theory says that variable reinforcement is astonishingly powerful.
The only other thought that occurs to me is, once technology allows, have every consumer item make friends with our kids, who would then be heartbroken if we got rid of them...
PS - The ancient greeks actually used to hold trials for tools that had injured or killed their owners, and condemn them to death. Sort of a "closure" thing, I guess.
Attention-seeking objects will be hard to part with
17 April 2009
James Pierce at Indiana University in Bloomington is designing ways for objects to periodically make their presence felt, forcing us to "reflect" on them more often. He believes that this will increase our sense of attachment to our possessions, helping to end our unsustainable habit of constantly buying new things and dumping the old.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227045.700-attentionseeking-objects-will-be-hard-to-part-with.html
I'm very glad intelligent, creative people are taking a chance or two and trying to come up with new ways to put a few speed bumps in front of consumerism.
But I'm not sure misbehavior is the way. My father didn't keep his beaters around longer if they were especially temperamental - we all buy badly behaved or too hard to understand electronics and software, and then return it or shelve it, or garbage it.
Variable reinforcement seems like a better bet to me, appealing to the gambler in all of us - how about engraving a lottery ticket good for a hundred years into every consumer item. The ticket would be more likely to win the longer the "ticket" was still out there, a bit more likely every year. Then we could cling to our old toasters "just a little while longer" waiting for them to pay off. Of course, there could be unintended consequences, you might increase hoarding, or fuel consumerism. Learning theory says that variable reinforcement is astonishingly powerful.
The only other thought that occurs to me is, once technology allows, have every consumer item make friends with our kids, who would then be heartbroken if we got rid of them...
PS - The ancient greeks actually used to hold trials for tools that had injured or killed their owners, and condemn them to death. Sort of a "closure" thing, I guess.
