The Future Of Education: Leave Them To Their Own Devices

Previously published on "This Is The Awful Truth".

Leave Them To Their Own Devices

The idea is to be able to provide a full and effective education to everyone, while bringing the costs toward zero. We can do that right now, with things that exist right now. This is just a crude outline, and I'm certain that more intelligent parties than myself can do better, but give it a glance and decide for yourself. If you're feeling particularly froggy, try it out.

The first building block would be our government's Universal Service Fund, which is a direct product of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act was a means of deregulation so that media cross-ownership could become a thing. The fund itself was intended as a means for access to better telecommunications at reasonable costs in areas of public interest, such as classrooms and libraries and hospitals. The monies collected from consumers of telecommunications services are not technically a tax, except that the cost is being passed on to us by most, if not all, services in order to cover their costs of compliance, so even if you recognize the benefit to the greater good, if you think of it as a tax still, no one should blame you. The most notable of the benefits of this fund would probably be the 'Obamaphone', which is a benefit of the Lifeline program, which actually started under Reagan, funnily enough. In conjunction, something similar is being done with broadband service called the National Broadband Plan, which when it goes into effect fully by 2020, will not only get the devices in the hands of people who lack and need them most, but will also get them connected to a reliable internet, at least tentatively. The cost for our services will no doubt go up again, but if utilized properly, can eliminate other drastic costs.

The second building block could either be a simple E-reader, such as a Nook or a Kindle, or perhaps a mini-tablet or Net-book. In reality, you could do everything I'm about to talk about on virtually all smartphones manufactured today. All inexpensive via the USF if they're dedicated to the 'greater good', and all about to be connected to some broadband, affordable ethernet, or whispernet, or cloudnet, or whatever, via the NBP. Not only can you store or obtain every textbook you'll ever need in this one device or account, but these devices, generally speaking, whichever way you go, are cheaper than most textbooks. You're also not stuck with just text either; adding audio or visual media is easy, as are hyperlinks that can take you to other points of interest on the internet. Further, with the appropriate app or program you could highlight a section of text and teleconference with someone else to assist with the material, which is simply the digital form of tutoring, not hindered by geographical location or distance. Add in a notepad feature and highlighting and you do away with the need for paper and physical notebooks as well. Consider also, the elimination of the manufacture, storage and transport costs of all those physical books as compared to one device with infinitely more utility.

The third building block, though not a necessity for even this layout if an individual has or can use existing technology, would be the One Laptop Per Child program. Inexpensive laptops, and tablets, created solely for the purpose of education, and distributed thus far in two ways; sold directly, and not for profit, to governments for distribution, and as part of a charity campaign that Amazon assisted, where the buyer would buy one, some other recipient got one at no cost and the entire thing was tax deductible.

The fourth building block would be the actual education, regardless of teacher involvement, age, geographic location or socioeconomic status. This means not only the material but how it is used. The first place we want to look is Khan Academy, a not for profit, which is not only a website, but has apps for Droid and iphones already as well as a complete standalone system where a coach can monitor an entire classroom's data at a glance. The basic setup is that a lesson is taught via a video, where the person can watch once or a hundred times if they need to, which is followed by practice sessions and the ability to self test; meaning if, per se, you get ten in a row correct, you must know the material, and if you can't, go back and either rewatch the lesson or practice some more until you're consistent. Several very useful elements present themselves here. 

First, in the spirit of self determination, the individual can go at their own pace. If someone is a natural at a subject or just quick to learn, they won't be held back by others who are not so gifted. Inversely, if someone is having trouble with some lesson or skill, they won't be forced to move forward and keep up so that they might reach that same understanding in their own time. The latter is where we get the notion of 'Swiss cheese learning', where for instance, a student fails to grasp an early lesson in a subject which most likely will negatively impact their understanding of at least some future lessons, but they're moved along with the rest of their classroom platoon anyway. 

Second, a teacher, a tutor, a mentor or a parent can monitor the student's progress unobtrusively, until, using their best judgment, they see clearly that it's time to step in and assist. Having someone hover over you, ready to pounce on every mistake as they judge you relentlessly might be great preparation for the military, but it doesn't allow a person to be creative, it more than likely crushes self esteem and the will to excel, simply for the sake of excellence, as well as defeating the natural impulses to be a problem solver in the first place.

Third, this works almost completely on auto-pilot. Education no longer has to be hindered by the schedules of bureaucracies or the calendars of those not involved in any personal way with the individual receiving the education.

If we add the idea of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) to what Khan Academy is doing, the potential for what education an individual can receive is becoming truly limitless. While there will certainly be premium elements at substantial prices available because of the names attached to them, you have to consider what is available, even now, at absolutely no cost or very low costs and consider what an individual can really do with resources at their fingertips. Here's a list of MOOCs to get you started; see what you can piece together for yourself.

The fifth building block would be the immersion in the desired field, whether through tour or educational videos, webinars, or simulations such as can be created with engines and applications like Second Life. This is how the individual knows what they're working towards, as well as the reminder of why to persevere when things seem the hardest. All it takes is one more building block for the individual to make the most informed and best choices for themself.

The sixth building block would be the integration to that previous system of immersion by the constantly updating employment projections and occupational outlook provided by our Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is where you prepare for the unknown, by constantly updated information pertinent to the interests of the individual. There is also where you look to see where else your skills could be used besides a single main interest.

There you have it. A virtually unlimited education, tailor made to the individual, for virtually any academic pursuit, with a cost close to zero.

The challenge for you right now is to try this for yourself, imagining what it would be like if it were actually coordinated, and then try to argue that our present public system is better.

I look forward to hearing your results.

The History of US Education: Horace Mann and the Prussian Model

Previously published on "This Is The Awful Truth".

Horace Mann And The Prussian Model

Horace Mann was notably nicknamed 'The Father Of American Education'.

Feel free to check out his Wikipedia entry Here.

His impressive story begins with humble beginnings as the son of a poor farmer, mostly relying on self-education at the library during his formative years. At age 23, he graduated valedictorian at Brown University and the theme of his oration was 'The Progressive Character Of The Human Race'. He went on to study a small amount of law, then to teach Latin and Greek and later became a librarian himself, eventually passing the bar. In his early 30's he was elected to the legislature which had him involved heavily in, among other things, education and public charities. Later as a Senator, and majority leader to boot, his chief focus was on infrastructure, which led to the development of canal and railroad systems in his state. Shortly after, in 1837, he became the Secretary of the new Massachusetts board of education, which was also the first such position in the US. At first blush, it would appear that everything since the age of 10 was merely a prelude to this last appointment, and not accidentally.

Upon his appointment, he ejected himself from all other political and professional interests to focus solely on the business and details of public education. The six main principles he adopted in his appointment were this:

1. The public should no longer remain ignorant.
2. Such education should be paid for, controlled and sustained by an interested public.
3. This education will be best provided in schools that embrace children from various backgrounds.
4. This education must be non-sectarian.
5. This education must be taught by the spirit, methods and discipline of a free society.
6. This education will be provided by well-trained and professional teachers. 

The foundations of his work began with professional uniformity and standards for teachers, establishing the Normal School For Teachers in 1839. Teachers wages were subsequently doubled, and teacher supervision was improved through school committees.

State aid for education also doubled, which resulted in 'free' libraries in school districts, 50 new secondary schools and improvement to textbooks and educational equipment.

He pursued his obligations and duties throughout his career diligently, by actively visiting and examining each school in person , discontinuing the use of corporal punishment in schools, holding teacher conventions, giving addresses and lectures personally, delivering annual reports as well as editing the Common School Journal which he had founded in 1838, comprehensive correspondence to rival any present day social media platform, and wound up bringing forth a full series of reforms informed and influenced by all the various positions and interests he had held over a lifetime. Which brings us to his visit to Europe in 1843 and the resulting annual report that brought about the 1852 adoption of the Prussian system of education in Massachusetts, which New York followed immediately with a trial and the rest of the country followed not too long after.

Clearly, Mann had a number of ideas for how to administrate a public education from the Prussian system long before his visit to Europe. This would suggest most likely, that in at least one of his trips to the library in his younger days, or maybe in his role as a librarian, that he had come across a report given in 1812 by another American educator, John Griscom, who happened to be the first chemistry teacher in the US, extolling the virtues of the Prussian system. Clearly, that visit to Europe took what Mann already believed and not only reinforced it, but emboldened it and enhanced it immeasurably.

To understand how Mann's guidance was altered by his visit to Europe, we're going to have to step back slightly earlier to Napoleon's defeat of the Prussians in 1806 and the resultant book 'Addresses to The German Nation' by philosopher Johann Fichte. Fichte very handily summed up the Prussian defeat down to one cause at the heart of many ills: the system of education had failed. The summary of Fichte's understanding of the defeat of Prussia was that at one time the Germans were a great people possessed of a spirit of piety, of honor, of modesty and of a sense of community, and the greatness was done in by the Enlightenment, from which self-seeking was derived, and self-seeking was the underlying cause of all other corruption. Hence this ability toward rationale undermined religion and its moral force, and as a consequence, the government became liberal and morally lax, leaving the neglect of duty to go unpunished, which subsequently led to their defeat at the hands of Napoleon.

You may read a partial summary of Addresses to The German Nation in regards to education Here.
Or you may experience the full English text, with introduction, archived Here.

From this, Fichte's idea of salvation was as follows:

• To mold the Germans into a corporate body, unified by the same interest.
• All distinctions of classes will be removed and vanished.
• The free will of the student will be recognized as the first mistake.
• Pupils should be separated entirely from the community, left under the sole influence of education.
• Obedience is an essential feature, and since it is not expected to be self imposed, it will be administered strictly by the educators.
• The law must maintain a level of severity and prohibit many things, based on fear of immediate punishment, to be administered without indulgence or exception.
• The able student is obligated to help the needy student, without expectation of reward, not even praise.
• The elimination of self interest will result in the pure love of duty for its own sake.
• Success will bring forth a student that is a fixed and unchangeable machine.
• The student will only find life, light and happiness in immediate contact with God, otherwise they will only know death, darkness and misery.

With the exception of the monotorial system, it appears that nothing proposed by Fichte was discarded or unnoticed by Mann in developing his reforms of public education, as made clear by some of the changes that occurred after his return from Europe.

• Compulsory attendance was made law in Massachusetts in 1852. By 1912 this law was enforced in every state.
• Age Grading was introduced, eliminating variances in age in classrooms, as well as the monotorial system where able students helped the teacher reach less able students by working with them, and grouping students together based solely on age, ignoring ability and aptitude.
• The lost monotorial system was replaced with a lecture system making the students more passive receivers than active participants in their own educations.
• Graduation ceremonies, based on college ceremonies were introduced to promote attendance to secondary schools.
• One of Mann's newly stated principles was to turn the nation's unruly children into disciplined and judicious Republican citizens.
• Another newly stated principle was to equalize the conditions of men and advance them socially, as well as instill character and values not being gotten in the home. These values included obedience to authority, promptness in attendance, and organizing their time through bell ringing, to purposely prepare them for the workforce, or equal in measure, in the service of the military.
• Publicly stating at once that public schools are not seminaries for those that wanted more secular, religious passivity in the schools, Mann also staved off religious authorities insisting that all Christian values were inculcated, or instilled vigorously, by the education process. This resulted in a near universal use of the Bible in public schools, which again, are not seminaries. 

This leaves us, so far as this perception allows, with the Prussian model as used by America to this day:

• The purpose of education is a student's service to the community, the state, and God.
• The student best serves themself by forgoing individuality, relinquishing free will, ignoring equally where they are skilled or deficient so long as the unit they belong to moves forward as a whole, holding obedience as a chief aim, being fearful always of the law, and becoming machine-like. The desired goal being becoming an obedient worker or soldier, in service to the community, the state and God.
• The instructor best serves by instilling the qualities that best serve the student, strictly enforcing the rules by punishing deviance or disobedience, and shaping the students as similarly as possible, according to the wishes of the particular administration they belong to.
• The administration  best serves by directing the instructors as to results most popularly desired by the community.
• The community best serves by following the interests of the state, as proposed by the public opinions of politicians and media, both sponsored by individual financial  interests, who generally claim their particular form of advertising to be for the public good. 

In short, a top down model of shaping children into adults who serve the authorities that are, by design and in purpose, supposed to be serving them. Even shorter: indoctrination. We can argue that indoctrination has its benefits and positive outcomes, such as what Prussia was trying to prevent ever happening again through their education overhaul of Fichte's salvation. What cannot be denied however is that indoctrination hinges upon weakening a person's thinking for it to operate fully, and that has no place in something that is supposed to be considered education.

Reconsider any and all times you've thought the education system had failed in the past, and ask yourself instead whether or not it was operating as designed.

The Trouble With Adam and Eve.

Previously published on 'This Is The Awful Truth".

Adam & Eve are getting a media revival:

Here the New Republic weighs in.
Here The Economist weighs in.
Here answersingenesis.org responds to The Economist article.

Cue my entry into the fray. If no other reason satisfies, consider it my 'seeing something' and 'saying something'.

Let's start with a few ground rules.

• While everything herein is a valid point or criticism, this is mainly for the sake of entertainment. Someone thinking through something they've just taken for granted for a long time would just be a really pleasant side effect.
• You do not have a right to not be offended. The purpose here wasn't to offend you in the first place, but know if it happens, I have no duty or obligation to protect anyone from ideas or arguments, either now or at any point in the future.
• I do, on the other hand, have an obligation to the truth, and stating it when I deem it appropriate or necessary, and if I've taken the time to write about something, rest assured, I did so because it really feels appropriate and necessary.
• Not one point here is of my creation. I merely compiled a list and added some commentary. I cannot claim authorship on anything beyond my own commentary. I stand on the shoulders of giants smarter than myself. It's a good habit I can't recommend enough. 

Got it? Good. Onward.

Let's start with an aesthetic touch:

Belly Buttons
A&E Belly Button meme
Sure, it's not fair to hold the bible accountable for the depictions of painters doing works based on scripture, but if your argument for the validity of the bible is that it was inspired by God, then it does and should apply further to works earnestly based on that bible as well. At some point, if you believe in this story, and you expect others to believe it as well, you must contend with either the validity of handed down information, which the bible itself is, the effects of interpretation of such information, whether by choice or happenstance, and/or the idea of a perfect designer and whether or not they could create something less than perfect, including a point at which that perfection fails, especially as it relates to something created in their own image.

Who wrote Genesis?
Where better to get this answer than truthingenesis.com?
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/who-wrote-the-book-of-genesis/
Note this from that page, with not the slightest hint of irony:

 Keep in mind that Moses edited Genesis from 10 eyewitness accounts. The accounts were probably written on clay tablets. Noah would have taken these tablets on the ark with him. The fact that people wrote down there account before Moses did does not mean that they got it right. The skeptics will say that the Samarian legend was written before Moses was even alive. They then imply that Moses copied from them. This is simply not so. If you have several people that are eyewitnesses to an event and they all write a story about what they saw, the first one to publish his story isn’t necessarily the one that got the story right. The fact that somebody published first doesn’t mean that they got the story right.

Let's say anyone takes seriously the idea that even a portion of the Genesis story actually had 'eyewitnesses', and that that one or all ten of those eyewitnesses stated exactly and in perfect detail what they recalled, and their memories were perfect as well, it is all for naught because according to this, Moses edited the whole thing himself, with Moses clearly not being an eyewitness himself. If that's not suspect enough, think a moment on who would exactly be an eyewitness to the Adam and Eve story anyway; nobody has ever claimed legitimately that God authored any of it, which now leaves us with two stupid teenagers and a talking, dust-eating snake blamed for the entire fallen state of humanity. Reliable witnesses all, I'm assured.

The Appeal to Authority
Tell me how these two teenagers would recognize any one authority as greater or more beneficial or more deserving of obedience than any other before eating the fruit from the 'tree of good and evil'. Why would a voice from the sky, or an old wizard kicking around the garden, hold any more sway over a voice from a serpent, especially before having allegedly gained the wisdom of recognizing good and evil? This is a worse paradox than having days before creating the sun on the recognized and universally accepted fourth unit of time derived solely from the earth rotating around the sun. Moses, were he the actual editor. was a terrible one, to say the least, especially in light of:

The Serpent Spoke The Truth.
So, God tells them they could eat from any of the trees in the garden, except for the tree in the center, for if they did, if they even so much as touched that tree, they would die. Snake comes along and says nope, you won't die. So the female idiot touches the tree and doesn't die. She picks some fruit from the tree and it still doesn't kill her. She eats the fruit and still nothing.

Consider the implication also that she got Adam to eat after she partook and gained the wisdom herself. Nobody much takes that into account; I wonder why.

 She gets the boy to eat it and she's still kicking and so is he. Along comes the allegedly all knowing, all seeing wizard, who has to ask where they are because they successfully hide from him, and then has to ask where they got informed about nakedness and if they had eaten from the tree, which is really odd, in retrospect, for a guy who allegedly can't be surprised. That must be why Eve detected the anger emanating from this really loving guy, so she tried to smooth things over by volunteering that she was deceived by the one who was honest, to the one that did the deceiving. Regardless of the intent of the character, the snake spoke nothing but truth, at least to Eve, at least inasmuch as this episode says. The best possible scenario is that this was a case of shoddy editing again.

I've seen people equate the boot from the garden with death, but even if this is the case, it wasn't touching the tree or eating the fruit that caused that. It was the judgement of the temperamental and absent-minded wizard that did that, and the worst possible punishment for, what must be classified as, a silly rule, that the temperamental and absent-minded wizard just could not bend on, even though he is allegedly capable of anything. This is the same wizard that left the one taboo tree right in the center, as an obvious temptation, with two kids who had no understanding of temptation, no means of fighting temptation and no reason to fight temptation. This was all a part of some plan as well? Terrible planning is the mark of a terrible planner. Or a still terrible editor.

I offer 'Moses, you're fired.', summoned with my best impression of Donald Trump, reinforced with the pointing flourish and minus the orangutan comb-over.

Lillith.
You're not familiar with Adam's first wife? Or that she,and not the devil, was originally considered the serpent who whispered in Eve's ear those tender truths that only a girlfriend can deliver, and that those same early paintings with the belly buttons on the idiot children depicted that same serpent with breasts? Does this maybe hurt the idea of biblical/traditional marriage more than gay marriage ever could? Maybe you don't know the story quite as well as you have believed all this time. Care to check a little deeper? Don't take my word for any of it. Don't stop digging with just this link either. 'Succumb to your curiosity', offered in my best dust eating snake impression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

What About The Children?
If you are a young earth creationist, you have to find a way that you can start with two people only, advance their population to millions, wipe out the majority with a global flood leaving less than a dozen people, remove all traces of evidence of that flood, and then get a population of millions again, and this is before we get to the tower tantrum with the lightning blast that imbued the airborne with the traits and qualities of Eskimos and Africans and Asians, and everything in between, alike in one fell strike. One of you should hire a good writer to put that together. And a good editor while you're at it.

For the rest, still trying to cling onto this story, you now have Eve being a clone replicated from Adam's rib, which means he was, for lack of a kinder way to state it, fucking himself. That's gonna get you some messed up kids, dontchathink?

Where did Cain's wife come from? And how do we avoid family picnics like these, aside from just staying out of the bible belt?

How were their children and then their children's children not mutants? Just because the author(s) of the story had no apparent understanding of genetics(which we won't hold them responsible for) does not mean reality is not a consideration(which we will hold those who refuse to acknowledge or accept reality most certainly responsible and accountable).

If incest was alright then but not now, how can you possibly even say with a straight face that there is (a)an objective morality, (b) a standard of traditional marriage, (c) a necessity of anyone to heed the injunctions about sex outside of wedlock or lust and (d) the ability at the end of all that to walk away with a cohesive narrative, that not only can you communicate, but compel others to believe? How do you reconcile all of that nonsense?

Scapegoating.
At the worst, if this story were even remotely true, Eve made a mistake, and then caused Adam to make the same mistake. After which, they were cast out of paradise, resulting in, among other things, women necessarily having to now suffer during childbirth, strictly as a punishment and snakes now supposedly forced to eat dust, which seems to have gone out of fashion, presumably once other options were recognized. This later leads to a woman being spiritually raped, who then goes through the unnecessary and painful process of delivering the physically manifest child of her rapist, who in turn is forced to be tortured unto his death as a salvation stopgap, which still leaves every living human creature born after them a sinner or a slave, and this was supposedly planned from the beginning, and this was supposedly the best and/or only way conceivable by someone who is supposedly not just loving and just, but 'all-loving', 'all-knowing' and 'all-capable', all done supposedly under the dual umbrellas of justice and objective morality, and wrapped up as a gift of supposed 'free will' which is by all accounts punishable if you actually utilize it.

The only lesson I personally gather from this is that some people will eat just about anything, their mental or physical well-being be damned.

It's only an allegory?
First things first. I am going to require my own code-breaking device that allows one to make the jump from one story to the next in scripture and say with any certainty which stories are supposedly historical fact and which are just helpful fictions. If props aren't required, please just explain the standard you know to say which is which. I won't hold my breath waiting for either.

The story, nay, the whole collection of stories, have many qualities that paint it as only a horrible fiction. Specifically in reference to the Adam and Eve story, not only does it not comport with our present scientific understandings; but even what we consider common sense shudders at the consideration of its validity.

It must just be a myth then, right? I'm fine with that, but you probably shouldn't be if you consider yourself a Christian. Christianity becomes a myth, necessarily, in its entirety, if you do so.

Without the Adam and Eve fable being real, God would have had no reason to await or arrange an immaculate conception, or impregnate her with a child, not only out of wedlock, not only without her consent, but with the only purpose of that child being betrayed and destroyed as a display to be beheld and by extent a measure of penance for that god's inability to change his mind and satisfy a plot worthy of having an Acme anvil land on his head ala Wile E Coyote. Once you've thrown your hands up and said that this one section is a fable and we can't expect it to be true and historical; once you've gone that far, you've destroyed the whole preposterous thing that flows and follows from it. There's no reason to accept any of it, up to and including the existence, deeds or injunctions of that god, as anything other than a wholesale and full scale terrible fiction. The ship has sailed and you are, sorry to say, left behind, as it were, there on the dock.

You do really have an all or nothing proposition here, and frankly, the nothing part looks to be winning, at least as far as popularity contests go.
-------------------------------
Agree? Tell a friend or someone else you think needs to see this.
Disagree? You can scowl and storm off to something more agreeable. You can also call names and attack me before you go; not that either will get you desirable results. If you have a good argument instead, then make a good case why anything here is wrong, then tell a friend or someone else you think needs to see this and they can also weigh in.

Thank you for your time and consideration in either case.

Is addiction a disease?

Previously published on 'This Is The Awful Truth":

"You cannot perform in a manner inconsistent with the way you see yourself."- Zig Ziglar

Without any qualification in the fields of medicine, biology or psychology I am not particularly qualified to say, but the simple and short answer is 'No, addiction is not a disease'. At worst I am just thinking out loud, and I thank you in advance for humoring me. At best, an actual professional may be inspired by something said here and do something positive with it.

All addictions are different, even when just comparing two people with the same addiction.. Not all addictions are harmful, some are benign, and some are beneficial. Some are simply a heightened interest in an object or subject while others are a full fledged obsession. Some addictions are physical, but most if not all are mental in nature. They certainly all appear to be just that at the outset.

Before I continue, there's an article worth reading here on this same question, by someone who is qualified to speak on it.
Psychology Today: The Heart Addiction, Is Addiction Really A Disease?

Take note:

In addiction there is no infectious agent (as in tuberculosis), no pathological biological process (as in diabetes), and no biologically degenerative condition (as in Alzheimer's disease).

and this:

addictive acts occur when precipitated by emotionally significant events, they can be prevented by understanding what makes these events so emotionally important, and they can be replaced by other emotionally meaningful actions or even other psychological symptoms that are not addictions.  Addictive behavior is a readily understandable symptom, not a disease. 

The good doctor, and I agree with this, boils down addiction to a symptom, but offers no guidance as to what it might be a symptom of. Humor me just a little further.
----------
To make my case, I am first going to point you toward Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs. Note that at the base is the primary physiological need for Homeostasis, and while this deals mainly with biological functions like oxygen and cell regulation or circadian rhythms, I believe this is also what tries to maintain or seek equilibrium with the way people see themselves compared to others within the context of the chaotic system of  values a person accumulates through experiences firsthand and many hands removed.  If it's not too presumptuous, please consider this a new spin on the theory of relativity.

How they picture themself in comparison or how they imagine things as they 'ought to be' creates parameters as a range the mind seeks to maintain or obtain. This appears to take place on a subconscious level, but based almost entirely on things believed at a conscious level.
------------------
Consider the idea of a guilty conscience. The individual knows they've behaved in a way that is beneath the standards or personal rules they've set for themselves and that thought sticks with them, whether as a loud signal or just a minor hum, until something is done to made amends and then that signal or hum dissipates. Balance and equilibrium are then restored as the image of what they are realigns with what they feel they should be.

Consider why diets usually only work in the short term, if at all. This brilliant 
TED Talk on Youtube given by Sandra Aamodt 
shows a very similar phenomenon of the body ignoring surface desires and heeding instead the mental image that is desired to be obtained or maintained. If they become consciously aware of how they're falling out of that range, and new parameters are not prepared for, the mind has the body start finding ways to put them back in that range.

Consider people that win big lottery jackpots or come into large inheritances or windfalls. If they were expecting it and find it agreeable that they should have this newfound wealth, they can usually maintain that new level without much trouble. Sadly, for a sizable portion of these 'lucky' people, the story has no happy ending. This article on why lottery winners go bankrupt, pushes the notion that they lack financial literacy or just can't control themselves. I think they're missing what really happens. I think it's the same idea of a person measuring the difference between where they are and where they think they should be, and the mind doing the rest to achieve the desired equilibrium and balance according to the range the person has set for themself.

You should be wondering at this point how that need for balance becomes an addiction in some cases, and how each case can differ so wildly from one to the next. This does not cover the whole range, and you can feel free to run with it, but it is a start:

• Does this person value belonging or individuality more, and how well do they see themselves doing the more important one?
• How well does the person cope with being outside what they consider their normal range in some particular facet of their lives?
• What values does the person hold as the most important, and how do they react if those values are attacked, violated or compromised?

----------------

Addiction is not a disease. Addiction is not even a disorder. Addictions are the proper result of a mind trying to find some balance between where a person imagines they are and where they imagine they belong, and are wholly dependent on the values of that person. Further, I believe calling an addiction a disease must, by all accounts, make the problem worse, as it creates its own range in which the person labelled is no longer responsible for their actions or they are just some hapless victim unable to change their circumstances, and so long as a person believes either or both, the mind will find a way to keep them there.

Further still, I would be wary of any group that maintains that a person must recognize themself as a victim so they replace the one crutch, with this new group as the new crutch, especially if that new crutch requires donations to prop them up.

I don't think I'm alone here at all.
AA: Of Course It's A Cult.

As ever, don't take my word for it. Think for yourself. Comment, rebut or pass this on as you see fit. Thanks.

Welcome.

"Oh, good. A new blog." said nobody, in a very long time.

The predecessor to this was called 'This Is The Awful Truth'.

I came to the realization shortly after creating it, that one, most people don't have much time for awful things unless they're really entertaining or profitable, and two, that the truth is a bit above my pay grade.

I have opinions. Unique enough and occasionally entertaining, but opinions none the less, and instead of patrolling the social stratosphere and attending with every misconception or untruth I happen upon in the moment, it's simply more convenient to think out an entry on the subject beforehand and just link it when prompted.

Knowing that the truth is not my exclusive property, I still feel a certainly responsibility to deal with non-truths as I encounter them. I'm certain you can likely relate. Making sure lies and misinformation stop spreading and get countered feels like a civic duty, doesn't it? Something for the greater good?

And yet, there's something in it for me, on a personal level. No, I won't be placing ads anywhere, or trying to sell you anything, ever. Although if the time comes that some other thing I am working on gets completed, you good readers will definitely be informed, but no, the incentive here is not profit.

I'm looking to start conversations, and on the chance that I am wrong on some sort of anything, I wish to be confronted and corrected. I am open to any and all debate and argument, so long as we stay on topic. Suggestions for such topics will be welcomed as well. Challenge me, I dare you. ;)

As for the name, S.O.C. may come to stand for many things, and I certainly have an array of options, but for right now, that is shorthand for Seeds Of Consideration. Certainly less egotistic than a banner of truth, yes? Socks aren't scary things, are they?

Welcome. Hope to hear from you.