Psychopaths rule the world

[Cornerstone]

Such an ill-conceived morality can only be passed on to children by people who do not truly love them.
Unexamined acceptance and transmission of questionable norms is a function of impatience and a desire to get through child-rearing with the minimum expenditure of time and effort.

But parents are not involved in 'Higher Education'.

Higher, post-secondary, tertiary, or third level education is the stage of learning that occurs at universities, academies, colleges, seminaries, and institutes of technology. Higher education also includes certain college-level institutions, such as vocational schools, trade schools, and career colleges, that award academic degrees or professional certifications.

But what you said applies here, too.

Unexamined acceptance and transmission of questionable norms is a function of impatience and a desire to get through child-rearing with the minimum expenditure of time and effort.

Just change 'child-rearing' to 'educating'.

A lot of University professors do not want to be teaching at all. They consider themselves primarily to be researchers and theorists.

 

[Nixie]

Well, the roots of higher education can be found amongst the elite. It was something afforded to the son's of the wealthy who would then take their grand tour. It was normally considered a sign of good breeding to have a classical education. Higher education, as I've said many times, is not about job training. It is about subjecting students to a wide range of educational topics (normally called general education and the first two years of college) which get increasingly more narrowly focused as you go along (choosing a major or field, normally the last two years). Education is a tool. It doesn't have a good or bad. You could argue that a professor might be skewing a topic but that is also part of the educational process--to teach someone to think critically and question. Whether or not a professor "wants" to teach or not is debatable and depends on the university. If a university only tends to give tenure to those who do research or touts itself as a "research" institute, then can you fault the professional for making the adjustment in their priorities? There isn't much doubt though, that the currency of the times lies in a great part on information and knowledge. For disenfranchised people, becoming well educated is a bigger boon then running around being ignorant and reactionary. Critical thinking skills are exceptionally undervalued. In truth, within any society at the brink of upheaval, the governments have tended to kill the intellectuals first. Why? Because they have the ability to question the actions of government which those who prefer to stay ignorant sheep do not. While not perfect, higher education and the ability it represents to tribal people, make it something I advocate for.

 

[#@&5&49]

Higher education refers to intellectual growth under guidance - and perhaps moral growth, in a limited sense.

Character and moral formation, as well as elementary knowledge constitutes basic education. The educators in this field are primarily the parents, with the assistance of teachers. Realistically, most parents shirk this responsibility, resulting in uncouth individuals.

Interestingly, in most non-English languages the term to describe rude, inconsiderate, undisciplined, or malicious individuals is literally the term "uneducated".

So, to answer your question, higher education in itself is good; and any moral deviance is the responsibility of the individual, and the parents are also responsible, albeit remotely.

I do not subscribe to the belief that higher education is merely a disseminator/facilitator of knowledge that has no control over nor responsibility in what people do with that knowledge. I feel if we can teach someone the skills to achieve a Doctorate in Finance we can also teach them the skills of professional ethics. While I agree that teaching basic moral principles falls largely on the parents shoulders, and to a degree on the K-12 educator and educational environment, I feel teaching professional ethics should be a requirement in higher education.

This is not to say college students who are taught professional ethics will choose to be more ethical in their profession, but at the very least this approach begins to address the pervasive abuse of power in modern society. I can't count all of the times that I have seen a university imply that they had something to do with the molding of the character of people who are seen by society as positive. Yet, when a person who goes through the same system becomes what society views as a negative, universities distance themselves from that kind of bad press. This is selective accountability, not to mention hypocrisy.

To claim to be simply a facilitator or disseminator of knowledge that has no responsibility in the development of the moral character of the people it helps create is basically as you said, shirking responsibility. Considering the many ways that education at all levels becomes a role model, shirking the responsibility of professional ethics on some other entity is essentially modeling that it's okay to shirk the responsibility of professional ethics. In other words, inaction is just as powerful a teaching tool as taking action.

Even if teaching professional ethics at the university level has no effect on the moral development of people, it will at the very least help prepare college graduates for the lack of professional ethics they will most likely encounter in whatever field they go in to.

I am a strong advocate for higher education, but I'm also realistic and advocate for addressing the problems associated with education. Adhering to an ideal without addressing the reality of the challenges of implementing that ideal is a pathway to self-destruction. There is a difference between the ideal perception of education; the reality of education in modern society; and the challenges created by attempting to blend an ideal with reality.

View attachment 18576

Gee wiz, do they make pills for this?

 

[just me]

Do the general higher education institutions, intertwined through history with an upper class of those rich enough to attend in many cases, do justice to their students? Look at how our knowledge of DNA was acquired..........................Human nature revels at our innate inability to serve others before serving self. We are taught to climb the ladder and ring the bell, then sent into the world to pay debt we have acquired. Today is a most appropriate time to look into the life of Rosalind Franklin. Daughter of a wealthy family, she was refused to dine with the men, called all sorts of things, and passed by as the race to understand DNA unfolded. Though she was a female Jewish wealthy scientist, how did those of her peers treat her and her work. They were selfish, were they not? They used her work behind her back, did they not? They denied her rightful place in their findings, did they not? Were they taught their moral inabilities at home?.................................................Will we wisely use what we have learned? Will we lose our ability to care while learning how to compete and succeed? Will not those abilities we lose be refocused on other forms of our senses? If we lose our vision, will not the lobe that processed light repurpose itself for something else? What if that includes darkness? Will we learn to walk unconsciously to our own doom? Will our experiences affect our self-awareness so much we no longer show empathy for others? What is the foundation of morality?............................................Teach a person advanced martial arts and one must teach the spiritual; it is all part of the essence of understanding. We learn to kill, yet honor the right to live. We learn to break, yet honor the right to be whole. We learn to be strong, yet we learn to control that strength in a ethical manner. I think it is easy to admit how people are taught to win at all costs. If winning constitutes a man's actions, should not that man also learn the true essence of empathy and its importance?

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

Higher education refers to intellectual growth under guidance - and perhaps moral growth, in a limited sense.

Did you know med schools study what drug companies decide them to study, because drug companies fund a very big proportion of the med schools?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Did you know med schools study what drug companies decide them to study, because drug companies fund a very big proportion of the med schools?

I didn't know that.

It is pleasing to know that companies are chipping in for the education of our doctors. Good on them.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

I didn't know that.

It is pleasing to know that companies are chipping in for the education of our doctors. Good on them.

Not sure if trolling or not. In case of not: Drug companies also decide which research results to reveal and which not to. Thus, they decide what product will be considered legitimate in the learning material and therefore the doctor you see when you have whatever problem it is you have, will give you what they taught him to give you. The drug companies themselves decide what is legit or not. And they are business people who care about sheer profits.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Not sure if trolling or not. In case of not: Drug companies also decide which research results to reveal and which not to. Thus, they decide what product will be considered legitimate in the learning material and therefore the doctor you see when you have whatever problem it is you have, will give you what they taught him to give you. The drug companies themselves decide what is legit or not. And they are business people who care about sheer profits.

That sounds a bit exaggerated. You can't say that med school is just attending advertisements for selected lines of drugs.

I was always pleased to receive scholarships, or grants during my studies.
If what you say is true, it just reflects on a very poor standard of university, or academic staff.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

That sounds a bit exaggerated. You can't say that med school is just attending advertisements for selected lines of drugs.

I was always pleased to receive scholarships, or grants during my studies.
If what you say is true, it just reflects on a very poor standard of university, or academic staff.

Whatever. Don't forget to take sunscreen so your butt don't get burnt in the sun while you chill with your head in the sand.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Whatever. Don't forget to take sunscreen so your butt don't get burnt in the sun while you chill with your head in the sand.

I don't contest that drug companies fund med schools, nor that they do it for pr.

I just don't think it's a bad thing.

It also seems petty to critcise funding for higher education and insinuate that graduates of sponsored schools will not be good doctors.



So, taking your advice, I expose my butt, like the moon, to the sun at you because I'm not all butt-hurt about medicine companies helping pay for the education of medics.

 

[Skarekrow]

Here is a nice article about the psychopaths currently running things....
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...cas-empire-full-display#.UfHarrYeArE.facebook

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

I don't contest that drug companies fund med schools, nor that they do it for pr.

I just don't think it's a bad thing.

It also seems petty to critcise funding for higher education and insinuate that graduates of sponsored schools will not be good doctors.



So, taking your advice, I expose my butt, like the moon, to the sun at you because I'm not all butt-hurt about medicine companies helping pay for the education of medics.

Enjoy your sleep.

 

[Cornerstone]

I don't contest that drug companies fund med schools, nor that they do it for pr.

I just don't think it's a bad thing.

It also seems petty to critcise funding for higher education and insinuate that graduates of sponsored schools will not be good doctors.



So, taking your advice, I expose my butt, like the moon, to the sun at you because I'm not all butt-hurt about medicine companies helping pay for the education of medics.

I don't agree with how it was said, but it is the case that real solutions to disease are kept hidden from both doctors and the public if they cannot be patented.

Look into the endocannabinoid system.
You'll see that there are ones in the body (notably in breastmilk), ones in nature (in many plants but one in particular) and then there are synthetic ones.

Only the synthetic ones that can be patented are acknowledged by the FDA to cause tumours to go into regression in mice.

You won't get any 'credible' sources other than the ones about synthetic cannabinoids but the link is clear.

 

[Odyne]

I do not subscribe to the belief that higher education is merely a disseminator/facilitator of knowledge that has no control over nor responsibility in what people do with that knowledge. I feel if we can teach someone the skills to achieve a Doctorate in Finance we can also teach them the skills of professional ethics. While I agree that teaching basic moral principles falls largely on the parents shoulders, and to a degree on the K-12 educator and educational environment, I feel teaching professional ethics should be a requirement in higher education.

This is not to say college students who are taught professional ethics will choose to be more ethical in their profession, but at the very least this approach begins to address the pervasive abuse of power in modern society. I can't count all of the times that I have seen a university imply that they had something to do with the molding of the character of people who are seen by society as positive. Yet, when a person who goes through the same system becomes what society views as a negative, universities distance themselves from that kind of bad press. This is selective accountability, not to mention hypocrisy.

To claim to be simply a facilitator or disseminator of knowledge that has no responsibility in the development of the moral character of the people it helps create is basically as you said, shirking responsibility. Considering the many ways that education at all levels becomes a role model, shirking the responsibility of professional ethics on some other entity is essentially modeling that it's okay to shirk the responsibility of professional ethics. In other words, inaction is just as powerful a teaching tool as taking action.

Even if teaching professional ethics at the university level has no effect on the moral development of people, it will at the very least help prepare college graduates for the lack of professional ethics they will most likely encounter in whatever field they go in to.

I am a strong advocate for higher education, but I'm also realistic and advocate for addressing the problems associated with education. Adhering to an ideal without addressing the reality of the challenges of implementing that ideal is a pathway to self-destruction. There is a difference between the ideal perception of education; the reality of education in modern society; and the challenges created by attempting to blend an ideal with reality.

View attachment 18576

Gee wiz, do they make pills for this?

It's been my impression all along that they do. There isn't a university program that I know of that doesn't include a class about ethics and ethical obligations of the profession towards society.


I am unsure as to how you got the idea that they don't.

 

[Cornerstone]

It's been my impression all along that they do. There isn't a university program that I know of that doesn't include a class about ethics and ethical obligations of the profession towards society.


I am unsure as to how you got the idea that they don't.

I was amazed to realise that my housemates who studied economics at a middling University (as in, not a graduate factory or a status quo maintainer) had 'Business Ethics' as a completely optional module. Even macroeconomics was optional which isn't as blatant but still encourages a lack of perspective. Both of these should really be compulsory.

 

[jyrffw54]

I was amazed to realise that my housemates who studied economics at a middling University (as in, not a graduate factory or a status quo maintainer) had 'Business Ethics' as a completely optional module. Even macroeconomics was optional which isn't as blatant but still encourages a lack of perspective. Both of these should really be compulsory.

That does strike me as odd. At the universities around my area, an ethics class ....or two are requirements to graduate, as they should be.

 

[Odyne]

@Sadie

I don't know about psychopaths as much as I would like to just yet, but it is my understanding that psychopathy is caused by either child abuse, social deprivation or genetic predispositions.

In fact, I recently read a report written by a forensic psychiatrist in UofT on the various methods of treatment and rehabilitation of psychopaths. She stated that they are by far the most difficult offenders to rehabilitate because they have the ability to manipulate treatment results in order to obtain an early release. One of the most common treatments is for the psychopath to be placed in a therapeutic community. In almost all cases, psychopaths were ones to recidivate with an escalation in violence after treatment. Same thing happened with cognitive-behavior therapy. They are simply incapable of forming the emotional bond with the therapist or their peers that is necessary for the treatment to be successful. Assuming that higher education is responsible for how these individuals turned out, which I don't think is plausible at all, I highly doubt that an ethics class given by a university teacher would have helped curb the homicidal homicidal tendencies or malicious objectives. If anything they would be ones to ace the class and get it out of the way to achieve their goals.



I am unsure, but blaming the "curriculum" for the creation of such individuals seems like shirking responsibility from something or somebody else who is more likely to be responsible.

@Cornerstone

That is definitely odd and unfortunate. I think, though, they assume that ethical education has been covered enough in K12 and high school that it is assumed the student knows to carry a moral responsibility towards society. We can propose that classes like that need to be mandatory for higher education schools to become accredited, but don't forget that educational institutions mimic private businesses nowadays.

 

[#@&5&49]

It's been my impression all along that they do. There isn't a university program that I know of that doesn't include a class about ethics and ethical obligations of the profession towards society.

I am unsure as to how you got the idea that they don't.

I have not heard of a university that has implemented a series of professional ethics courses as part of their general education requirements. I have heard of business ethics courses being offered as an option (one class). Perhaps some universities and some majors do require it and do require more than one class, but I have not heard of it being implemented nationwide as a general education requirement standard for all majors. Hopefully, the universities that are requiring this will set a standard and this will eventually become the norm. I'm curious which university and which program you are speaking of that requires courses in professional ethics in order to graduate.

 

[#@&5&49]

@Sadie

I don't know about psychopaths as much as I would like to just yet, but it is my understanding that psychopathy is caused by either child abuse, social deprivation or genetic predispositions.

In fact, I recently read a report written by a forensic psychiatrist in UofT on the various methods of treatment and rehabilitation of psychopaths. She stated that they are by far the most difficult offenders to rehabilitate because they have the ability to manipulate treatment results in order to obtain an early release. One of the most common treatments is for the psychopath to be placed in a therapeutic community. In almost all cases, psychopaths were ones to recidivate with an escalation in violence after treatment. Same thing happened with cognitive-behavior therapy. They are simply incapable of forming the emotional bond with the therapist or their peers that is necessary for the treatment to be successful. Assuming that higher education is responsible for how these individuals turned out, which I don't think is plausible at all, I highly doubt that an ethics class given by a university teacher would have helped curb the homicidal homicidal tendencies or malicious objectives. If anything they would be ones to ace the class and get it out of the way to achieve their goals.

I am unsure, but blaming the "curriculum" for the creation of such individuals seems like shirking responsibility from something or somebody else who is more likely to be responsible.

I got off the subject of psychopathology when I started discussing education reform. I thought about starting a different thread to discuss education, but since we started discussing it here (as a result of my off the cuff remark) I thought I might as well continue it where I started it. I did not mean to imply that education is responsible for the rehabilitation of psychopathology nor did I mean to imply that education is responsible for creating psychopathology. I wasn't even looking at this from the perspective of pschopathology, even though that is what this thread is about (my mistake). I apologize for the confusion. I was strictly looking at the abuse of power and lack of professional ethics in modern society and how curriculum, along with several other societal factors, has the means to address this issue. I'm involved in education reform and developing a series of courses in professional ethics as part of college general education requirements for all majors is one of the things I advocate for. That's why I'm interested in which universities and programs you were speaking of in your earlier post, I would really like to take a look at what they're teaching, how they're teaching it, and how they're implementing it. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position. Perhaps we should move all of these education posts to a different thread.

 

[#@&5&49]

That does strike me as odd. At the universities around my area, an ethics class ....or two are requirements to graduate, as they should be.

Is that in one program major or in all program majors? And is the requirement only one ethics class?