These are fair criticisms. No matter which side of the 'capitalism is good' debate you are on this video was so bad, with errors of history and even of definition, that I was left doubting how good a scientist she actually is.
I don’t think this is—nor should it be—a judgment on her quality as a scientist. Rather this should be a judgment on her as a person.
Instead of questioning her as a scientist, rather ask your self, why she applies this non-scrutinizing philosophy to the field of economics and sociology (as well as health care; see video about gender affirming care), while she so well known and successful for her extreme skeptical takes on the field of her expertise. Like she must have a personal reason—not a scientific one—for this dissonance.
I think you're right about her having personal reasons for this. I watched her video on GAC after writing the comment above. I think what it has in common with the capitalism video is that she is trying to back up a personal bias with poorly reasoned and evidenced arguments.
It's possible that she's a great scientist, I don't know enough physics to tell whether there is a dissonance or whether it's all snake oil. My skepticism comes from seeing such (conscious or not) intellectual dishonesty on her part
On the back of his Ambient 4 album Eno gave instructions for a cheap way of getting a sort of surround sound using a third speaker. I did this as a teenager with my mediocre record player and a small speaker with almost no bass - it worked surprisingly well
Nah - I think they're daft kids and Shakespeare is showing us that. The play begins with Romeo utterly in love with Rosaline - what's that for if not to show us not to take his feelings for Juliet too seriously
And Juliet's 13 - which was very young for marriage even at that time. Certainly not what would have been considered 'adult' then
> The play begins with Romeo utterly in love with Rosaline - what's that for if not to show us not to take his feelings for Juliet too seriously
Rosaline is a nun and therefore pure and unattainable. Shakespeare is lampooning the genre of “courtly love” where the poet is longing but the love never consummated. Romeos “heavy lightness”-poem is a satire of this genre.
This is contrasted with the love for Juliet which is real and physical. Notice how Romeos poetry becomes a lot better when he meets Juliet.
The complaints that Romeo and Juliets love is “not real” (because of physical desire and sex) is really an echo of the ideals of courtly love, which Shakespeare ridicules.
> And Juliet's 13 - which was very young for marriage even at that time. Certainly not what would have been considered 'adult' then
This is specifically adressed in the play. Juliet is consideret of appropriate age for marriage, and is already being set up with Paris before she meets Romeo.
Of course she is just a child by modern standards, but that is irrelevant for understanding a 400-year old play.
Private R&D is around 60% - however a large part of that is making minor changes to existing molecules in order to obtain fresh patents.The bigger, riskier research is done by the NIH and other publicly funded bodies. See
Also - the quality of privately funded research is much worse, with non-reporting of negative results, data dredging and other dodgy activities being routine - see
Intriguing. I've often speculated about how private sector research compared with public research, especially in the context of the reproducibility crisis since I assumed that a lot of pharma companies knew that some research couldn't be replicated behind closed doors. I wonder what the quality of proprietary / unreleased studies is- do the links you provide take that into account?
It compares badly. Unfortunately too much private research is allowed to be kept secret - but what is known indicates it's of poorer quality - judged by the kind of metrics the Cochrane Institute use.
Goldacre's book (he also has a blog) is well worth reading - describing _many_ ways in which drug companies can cheat.
I sent my three children to Summerhill - the youngest is still there. I think your impressions were correct - I certainly consider it to have been a great success.
One of the kids was of an academic bent, she studied hard and now seems happily set on an academic career. The other two boys are obsessed with music, and got/are getting the minimum number of qualifications to allow them to go to music college. That seems to be a common pattern at the school - kids figure out what they want to do, the qualifications needed (if any) and get them. Of course, being teenagers, they're perfectly capable of screwing up - but I think, if anything, putting responsibility for their lives in their own hands makes that _less_ likely, rather than more.
One other data point I have concerns bullying. On my first visit we attended one of the meetings where there was a case about some young boys, around 12, who had been picking on one of the kids. On older boy, maybe 14/15 at the time, tore into them. His outrage was something to behold. I remember thinking that if I was 12, and a teacher had disciplined me for bullying, my attitude would have been 'yeah whatever' - but to have an older boy do the same would certainly have had an effect.
I'm lucky to have been able to afford this - if I couldn't I'd probably opt for unschooling, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling. Having had experience of democratic education, I now view mainstream schools as as somewhat bizarre, unpleasant institutions, and certainly wouldn't want to send my kids to one.
Thank you for sharing that. Could I ask how you and your children cope with the boarding aspect of Summerhill. This was something my wife and I fundamentally disagreed on. (Un)Fortunately the cost of Summerhill made this a moot point.
The unschooling link looks helpful.
My three children all go to highly regarded UK state schools which are frustratingly conservative, inflexible and very focused on teaching for tests rather than life.
However breaking out and homeschooling seems wildly risky and frankly not possible without me abandoning my business.
Moreover I think that education should be a social and collective action so am pulled in both directions.
I'd love to see people with influence and funds (pg!) apply themselves more in this area. I'd be willing to throw myself behind that.
There's a keen and pressing need for humans to grow up happier, more self and environmentally aware and I doubt the current dominant educational paradigms and systems are going to provide this.
Automated systems are replacing 'rote' jobs at increasing speed, so educational systems that cater for developing creativity (Summerhill, Steiner etc) are likely to have an increasing economic advantage.
I've visited Summerhill, but as an American it would be impractical to send my daughter there for all her schooling. I'm wondering if you think one or two years would do her much good, assuming we could get her to go back to normal schooling in the States.
Neill said he only wanted the child up until he was seven (the classic Jesuit model of education). Do you agree that before seven is the critical age?
Mine were all older than that when they went, IIRC they were 8, 11 and 13. I don't think there are many kids under 7 there right now. I'm surprised by that Neill quote tbh, I'd have thought that the worst part of schooling occurs when you're older.
As for going for just a year or two - not sure I can give advice on that. Zoe Readhead, the principal, is very approachable - she could help you there.
If you've any questions you want to ask me offline, I'm at <hn user name>@gmail.com.
Hmm, it seems the quote I'm thinking of must have been in an extended edition of Summerhill that I've since given away. I remember Neill saying in an aside that he never had luck forming children's characters after they were about seven, and he compared it to the Jesuit assertion "give me the boy until he is seven and I will give you the man."
My daughter is nearing two so we're trying to make plans for her, but as others have said in this thread it's hard to know without knowing her personality. She might do great at a Summerhill-type school or she might need more structure.
I've had my bodyweight (110 KG) stuck on my chest with no ill effects other than embarrassment. As the parents say, simply slide the weights off, or ask anyone nearby for a hand.
One thing that is extremely dangerous is using the 'suicide grip' when benching - i.e. having the thumb and fingers on the same side of the bar and simply resting the bar on the palms. It's stupid, but a surprisingly large number of lifters use it.
https://www.youtube.com/live/Uu_03mUPgHU?si=ggJYSJH8SUy0AcKO