Despre ce se intampla in sistemul de invatamant

June 4, 2015 //
2

Inca un post inspirat de un articol aparut in Jurnalul Roz de Cazarma al Simonei Tache:

“Cât mai rezistăm cu acest sistem de învățământ mizerabil?”

Sistemul de invatamant nu are cum sa fie fundamental diferit fata de restul societatii.
Iar aceasta problema este principial aceeasi peste tot in lume, sunt foarte putine tarile in care oamenii nu isi pun cu acuitate intrebari pe aceasta tema.
De fapt aceasta ‘tevatura’ este un simptom al unei probleme mai adanci.
Sistemul de invatamant este, in realitate, un mecanism prin care generatia actuala o pregateste pe cea viitoare pentru a se integra in societate. Pentru ca acest sistem sa functioneze macar satisfacator ar trebui ca generatia actuala sa aibe o idee relativ clara despre cum ar trebui sa arate viitorul pentru care o pregateste pe urmatoarea. Si, in acelasi timp, mai trebuie ca acesteia din urma – adica copiilor nostri – sa le convina perspectiva care li se ofera.
Numai ca eu nu sunt deloc convins ca generatia noastra stie cu adevarat ce vrem. In schimb stiu sigur ca ai nostri copii sunt debusolati rau de tot cu privire la tot ceea ce se intampla in jurul lor.
In situatia asta ma intreb ‘ce ar mai trebui sa reziste’? Noi insine, ca persoane fizice sau ‘noi’ ca societate?
Ne place atat de mult situatia actuala? Incat sa o oferim ca model copiilor nostri?
Nu cumva ar trebui sa facem un pic de curatenie, mai ales ‘mentala’, inainte de a incerca sa transmitem ceva mai departe?

In recent schimbata strategie a educatiei se tot vorbeste despre nevoia de reabilitare a invatamantului profesional/vocational. Se spune acolo ca tot romanul viseaza ca odrasla sa sa ajunga cel putin director si ca nimeni nu-si indeamna copii sa invete o meserie ‘practica’….
Pai ce meserias mai traieste cu adevarat bine in Romania zilei de astazi?

Daca pana si medicii au inceput sa plece… ce ne mai miram ca profesorii nu mai au nici un fel de tragere de inima?

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories cadre mentale, Justitie sociala, psihologie

Usor cu justitia pe scari ca ne sar dintii din gura.

June 2, 2015 //
2

In Roma antica se spunea ‘Fiat justitia, ruat caelum’.
In general aceasta fraza este tradusa prin: ‘Sa se faca dreptate chiar de ar fi sa cada cerurile’.
Am propus mai demult o alta interpretare: ‘Sa avem grija ca justitia sa fie cu adevarat dreapta pentru ca altfel ne va cadea cerul in cap’.

Lucrurile au inceput din nou sa se incinga pe malurile Dambovitei.

Mi-am adus aminte ca pe aici e mai populara varianta ‘Fiat iustita et pereat mundus’, evident cu traducerea echivalenta: ‘Faca-se dreptate chiar de ar fi sa vina sfarsitul lumii’.

Cum de cativa ani incoace Google functioneaza chiar bine am vrut sa vad ce mai poate fi gasit pe aceasi tema prin cotloanele netului.

Surpriza…

Cica varianta cu sfarsitul lumii nu provine din Antichitate – dupa cum ar sugera limba in care este formulata – ci a fost “Deviza lui Ferdinand I de Habsburg (1563–1564), întemeietorul monarhiei austriece, rege al Boemiei şi al Ungariei (1526), împărat germanic de la 1558 la 1564, fratele mai mic al lui Carol Quintul”.

Si mai interesant este insa faptul ca Immanuel Kant a folosit o varianta a acestei expresii, pe care a ‘tradus-o’ intr-un mod mult mai folositor pentru oricine este preocupat cu adevarat de problema asta:

“The true but somewhat boastful sentence which has become proverbial, Fiat iustitia, pereat mundus (“Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it”), is a stout principle of right which cuts asunder the whole tissue of artifice or force. But it should not be misunderstood as a permission to use one’s own right with extreme rigor (which would conflict with ethical duty); it should be understood as the obligation of those in power not to limit or to extend anyone’s right through sympathy or disfavor.”

Am dat citatul in engleza pentru ca nu stiu daca voi fi in stare sa traduc suficient de bine si ‘spiritul’ spuselor lui Kant. Voi incerca totusi:

“Expresia ‘Fiat justitia, pereat mundus’ (faca-se dreptate chiar daca ar fi sa piara toate canaliile din cauza asta), adevarata cu toate ca are in ea destula fanfaronada, exprima un puternic principiu de drept si dezvaluie realitatea din spatele cortinei alcatuita din farsa si agresivitate. Mare grija totusi, ea nu trebuie inteleasa ca un indemn catre utilizarea unui drept pana la ultima sa consecinta (acest lucru ar intra in conflict cu ideea de datorie etica) ci ca obligatie a celor de la putere ca acestia sa imparta dreptatea in mod egal, fara sa tina cont de simpatiile sau antipatiile lor.”

Kant nu se osteneste sa mentioneze explicit si ce se va intampla cu cei care nu ii respecta sfaturile.
Sa-i fi considerat oare, in mod implict, ‘canalii’?

Pana la urma chiar si cei mai idealisti dintre noi sunt de acord ca idea de justitie a pornit tocmai de la viata de zi cu zi. In care ne-am convins, cu totii, ca nici o colectivitate umana nu functioneaza cu adevarat bine atata vreme cat membrii ei, toti membrii ei, nu se se simt in largul lor.

Atunci cand unii incep sa fure ceilalti incep sa isi piarda increderea in semenii lor. Relatiile dintre membrii societatii se deterioreaza foarte mult, ba chiar ajung sa se blocheze.
Atunci cand unii incep sa se foloseasca de forta pentru a-si impune punctul de vedere – de la talharie pana la dictatura armata – indivizii obisnuiti, indiferent de tabara din care se intampla sa faca fata, sufera o serie de transformari care, insumate, conduc la o degradare marcata a intregii societati. A se vedea soarta comunitatilor de pirati, a societatilor dominate de Mafie sau a dictaturilor – de orice coloratura.

Daca stam bine sa ne gandim, balanta justitiei nu cantareste doar meritele relative ale celor doua parti supuse actului de judecata ci si efectele produse asupra intregii comunitati  de insusi modul in care este administrata functionarea justitie.
Este foarte important ca o sentinta sa fie justa dar este cel putin la fel de important ca respectiva sentinta sa fie adoptata mergand pe ‘drumuri drepte’ si nu ‘luand-o pe scurtatura’.

Principiul cu ‘mai bine sa scape 99 de vinovati decat sa fie pedepsit pe nedrept un singur nevinovat’ nu are ca scop protejarea vinovatilor ci pe membrii de rand ai societatii, vinovati si nevinovati laolalta.
Respectarea stricta a acestui principiu convinge foarte repede populatia de corectitudinea sistemului judiciar si conduce la cresterea rapida a coeziunii sociale si a cooperarii dintre oamenii ‘obisnuiti’ si ‘oamenii legii’.Iar pentru ca acest principiu sa fie respectat nu este nevoie sa fie ‘lasat sa scape’ nici macar unul dintre cei 99 ci doar ca fiecare condamnare sa fie facuta abia dupa ce au fost administrate probe suficiente pentru a spulbera si orice urma de indoiala cu privire la vinovatia acuzatului. Nu este de ajuns ca o sentinta sa satisfaca ethosul colectiv de la un moment dat. Acesta se poate schimba foarte repede insa soarta unui om nu poate fi data inapoi, ca ceasul.

Dupa cum nici cerurile nu mai pot fi urcate la locul lor, dupa ce ne vor fi cazut in cap.
Si daca mai continuam asa… nu mai dureaza mult.

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories cadre mentale, Justitie, politica

HR Trends. No.1: Big Data

June 1, 2015 //
0

” Companies lack the capacity to intelligently analyze the data and they lack the systems and data structures to provide the usable data even though such data exists.”
….
“But Kenexa, which tested 30 million applicants last year for thousands of clients, has found that a lengthy commute raises the risk of attrition in call-center and fast-food jobs. It asks applicants for call-center and fast-food jobs to describe their commute by picking options ranging from “less than 10 minutes” to “more than 45 minutes.” The longer the commute, the lower their recommendation score for these jobs, says Jeff Weekley, who oversees the assessments.”

So they needed to analyze a ton of data to figure out that even the people who (have to) accept relatively low skilled/payed jobs are rational enough to use every opportunity to shorten their commute?!?

Well done, guys!

Read the entire post, Tim Ackermann does a good job at sorting out the current myth about ‘Big Data’.

talentim's avatartalentim

While preparing some presentations for HR and recruitment peers I researched and re-thought the trends (aka buzzwords :-)) which are currently discussed in the HR and online community. I will add my thoughts over the next weeks (hopefully not months) and start with Big Data. Also thanks to @carllsons who included this topic in his presentation at the Social Media in HR Summit a few weeks ago.

Generally speaking, Big Data is…

… a collection of data sets so large and complex that it becomes difficult to process using on-hand database management tools. The challenges include capture, curation, storage, search, sharing, analysis, and visualization. The trend to larger data sets is due to the additional information derivable from analysis of a single large set of related data, as compared to separate smaller sets with the same total amount of data, allowing correlations to be found to “spot business trends, determine…

View original post 728 more words

Categories Uncategorized

“Dirty eyes see nothing but dirt”

June 1, 2015 //
0

That was how an old friend of mine – thanks Oache – was treating anyone who complained too much.
And there were plenty reasons to complain about during Ceausescu’s communist rule over Romania.

Five minutes ago I found this in my inbox:

A  young couple moves into a new  neighborhood.
The next morning while they are  eating breakfast,
The young woman sees her  neighbor hanging the wash  outside.
“That  laundry is not very clean,” she said.
“She  doesn’t know how to wash correctly.
Perhaps  she needs better laundry  soap.”
Her  husband looked on, but remained  silent.

Every time her neighbor would  hang her wash to dry,
The young woman would  make the same comments.

About one month  later, the woman was surprised to see a
Nice  clean wash on the line and said to her  husband:
“Look, she has learned how to  wash correctly.
I wonder who taught her  this.”
The husband said, “I got up early  this morning and
Cleaned our  windows.”

And so it is with life.   What we see when watching others
Depends on  the purity of the window through which we  look. 

I’d go even further than that.
The way we perceive what’s going on around us depends heavily on the ‘filter’ each of us chooses to use when trying to make some sense of this world.
Catalin Zamfir, a Romanian sociologist with a keen interest in the decision making process, has studied how individuals try to assuage the feeling of acute/constant uncertainty experienced by each of them during the constant (social) encounters that constitute ‘daily life’. In one of his early books, unfortunately not yet translated in English, he explains that ‘ideology’ is not only a blue print for future action but also, and maybe even more important, the lens/filter through which we perceive what is going on around us. An interface that translates ‘reality’ into ideas that make sense for each of us.
The interesting thing about ‘ideology’ is that it isn’t fixed. Each of us can choose from whatever is available in his time or even ‘write’ his own.
Granted, the process of selection/rewriting incurs costs/risks. Some obvious, like adopting a contrarian stance, and others very well hidden in plain view, like the dangers that arise from indiscriminately following a herd.
And this is exactly why we should strive to keep our windows/ideological eyes as clean as possible.
Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, fail better, Frames of mind, Psychology, Respect Mutual., Social justice

Democray, impersonal procedure or widespread state of mind?

May 31, 2015 //
2

‘Democracy’ comes from ‘demos’, the Greek word for ‘people’.
Basically a democratic society is  a social arrangement where the people is in charge. Through representatives, as in most cases, or even directly – the Swiss organize referendums whenever they have something really important to decide.

‘Republic’ comes from Latin. ‘Res publica’ means ‘public matters (=issues)’ so a republic can be seen as a social arrangement where everything is out in the open.

Would it make any sense for the public to know everything that is going on if they don’t have any say in the matter? Could democracy work if people are kept in the dark?

So.
In communism the state (in fact the rulers) decide everything – who does what and who gets what.
In socialism there is not much difference from the previous state. (I can vouch for both propositions, I’ve lived under both regimes)
‘Anarchy’ means no rules. If you happen to have two cows you need to defend them constantly, by your own, against anyone who covets them. Remember, anarchy means ‘no rules’ whatsoever. You cannot cherry-pick. I like this rule (property rights are fundamental for me) so this one stays in place while the the rules that I don’t like will be discarded.
As in ‘I won’t respect but the rules I like and I’ll hold everybody else to respect mine’.
That would be an absolutely one sided anarchy. If you’d be able to enforce such an arrangement it would be perceived by everybody else as the most authoritarian regime ever and Stalin would be jealous of your accomplishments.
As I said before ‘democracy’ means people having their say about how things are settled in a that particular society. If people respect each-other you have real democracy. If people band together to decide, against the will of the owner, about the fate of those fabled two cows we can no longer speak about true democracy. That would be ‘mob rule’, just another form of ‘anarchy/authoritarianism’. One ‘organized’ by a ruler who is a callous spin doctor skilled enough in his trade to make a considerable portion of the population follow him, usually against their better interests.

I was just speaking about the mutual respect that exists among the members of a truly democratic society…. I have a distinct feeling that those who promote this meme think of themselves as being ‘the true democrats’… I’m not a religious person myself, not in the classic sense of the word anyway. But I won’t ever think of a religious person as being ‘ignorant’ based solely on his creed and I’ll never refer to him using such a word, regardless of his level of education. One of the reasons being that if I ‘indulge’ in such a barbarism he’ll never listen to me again.
Why should he? To get some more abuse from me?

Now lets get this straight.
Mutual respect is absolutely essential for democracy.
There can be no such thing as mutual respect among individuals whose goals are mutually exclusive.
This meme actually doesn’t make much sense. No matter how well armed the lamb is, a determined wolf would eventually sink its fangs in the lamb’s sweet flesh so a rational lamb would do his best to shoot the wolf at the first opportunity. What kind of democracy are we speaking about here?

Most governments don’t get this. You can stretch it only that far. At some point, no matter how authoritarian the regime, people will take to the street.
This doesn’t mean that democracy will automatically be installed after a public uprising, far from it. The Arab Spring is only the latest example.
It only means that people have it in themselves to try to improve their lot. If they find a way to do this together then the sky’s the limit.
And this is a fact. Only the democratic America successfully landed a man on the Moon. The Soviet Union was the first to start this game but wasn’t able to keep up.

Yeah? And what are bragging about here?
About not finding a candidate to suit your wishes AND not doing anything about this situation?
How about running yourself? Or at least going there and annulling your ballot…
If you do not vote at all the political establishment will consider that you are either content with what is going on or so despondent as to not care anymore. So why should they even consider your plight? In which direction should they change their behavior in order to suit your needs if you don’t express them when you have the chance?

Really? Is he indeed unable to make distinction between democracy and mob rule?
‘Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing’…
I’m afraid he didn’t get the gist of it!
Real (=functional, stable over long periods of time) democracy IS good while mob rule IS bad. Period.

So, any chance for this cute fellow to have nailed it?

Close but there is space for improvement so I’ll try to rephrase this.
A democratic system invariable becomes weak/unstable if the general public becomes complacent and the power is grabbed by short-sighted but arrogant and callous spin doctors who, by eviscerating the true nature of democracy, transform the concept into an empty shell. This way the democratic process becomes a beauty pageant and an erstwhile democracy becomes a subtle dictatorship.

The strangest part of all this is that exactly those who should have known better – the professional politicians and some members of the academia – are the first to fall into the trap.

 

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, Frames of mind, politics, Psychology, The kind of world we live in

Un fel de test

May 31, 2015 //
1

Din cand in cand simt nevoia sa ascult ‘Romania, Trezeste-te!’.
De data asta am deschis, pe Youtube, un clip cu mai putine vizualizari. Pur si simplu m-a atras fotografia de intro.

La inceput am ras, apoi m-am intrebat ce vrea sa spuna cel care a facut selectia iar la final mi-am dat seama ca nu voi putea niciodata sti ce gandeste cu adevarat o alta persoana.

In schimb am inteles ca toata tarasenia asta poate fi luata ca un fel de test.
Pe care putem foarte bine sa ni-l administram singuri.
Uitandu-ne la clip, chiar de mai multe ori, si apoi incercand sa clarificam, in cuvinte, ce am simtit.

– Asta isi bate joc de Romania!
– Situatia e complexa.
– Oamenii sunt foarte ‘ingeniosi’ si gasesc rezolvari/utilizari cateodata extrem de neasteptate.

Tags , , , ,
Categories cadre mentale, Justitie sociala, Lumea descrisa prin bancuri, psihologie

O critică tovărășească, materialistă și dialectică adresată lui Barbu Mateescu și colegilor de la publicația deviaționistă Caiet

May 30, 2015 //
0

” În opinia mea, analiza suferă prin aceea că ia poate prea mult în serios puterea independentă a ideilor în societate.”
Bineinteles ca ideile in sine nu au nici o putere pana cand nu capata ‘tractiune sociala’ iar asta se intampla tocmai atunci cand din ce in ce mai multi oameni observa care dintre ideile ‘propuse’ se potrivesc mai bine realitatilor sociale ale momentului.
Numai ca alternativa – credinta unora ca stiu ei, sigur, care sunt ideile potrivite unui anumit context social – este cel putin la fel de mioapa ca si credinta in ‘puterea independenta a ideilor in societate’. De fapt ambele sunt cele doua fete ale unei aceleiasi monezi, cea batuta de Platon cu ocazia introducerii pe scena a ‘Regelui Filozof’ cel atoatestiutor.
Iar toata chestia imi aduce aminte cat de nedumeriti erau specialistii in Kremlinologie in 1989, atunci cand s-a prabusit comunismul fara ca ei sa bage de seama.

Andrei Tiut's avatarCivitas Politics

a

Pe situl Centrului de Analiză a Informațiilor și Evaluare a Tendințelor (CAIET) a apărut recent o analiză comparativă care caută să aplice ceea ce am putea învăța din ascensiunea fulminantă a Syriza la realitățile românești. Textul nu este un „caiet al revoluționarului” ci o privire din afară care caută să vadă în ce măsură o mișcare similară ar putea apărea și la noi.

Cu intenție – sau poate fără – documentul pornește de la un cadru conceptual prin care ni se propune să analizăm realitatea pe trei nivele. Eu le numesc:

  • acțiune (engl. agency) – ceea ce fac actorii politici. Autorii numesc asta „voință politică”.

  • context/circumstanțe (engl. contingency) adică … circumstanțele care înconjoară acțiunea. Autorii numesc asta „circumstanțe favorizante” deși, la o adică, ele pot fi și defavorizante sau simplificatoare sau aducătoare de complicații.

  • sistem (engl. structure) adică structura realității pe termen mai lung. Autorii numesc…

View original post 779 more words

Categories Uncategorized

A very interesting video about how our brains work.

May 28, 2015 //
1

PS
I must add here that because the cogs act like levers the handlebar is a lot easier to move than on a normal bike. This compounds the difficulty even further.

Tags , , ,
Categories physics, Psychology

Better failing

May 27, 2015 //
0

“Hope is a mistake. If you can’t fix what’s broken, you’ll go insane.” This muddled piece of dialogue grunted out by Max (Tom Hardy) is a pretty spot on summation of my thoughts on Mad Max: Furious Road. The fact that this film has somehow slipped into the consciousness of the masses, winning the heart of critics and blowing the minds of audiences, is an anomaly to me. With a staggering 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I’m still questioning if I happened to miss something or not. I had hoped this would be the heart-thumping action film that others promised. I wanted to bawl over in joy becoming lost in a ridiculous, yet intelligent world created by director George Miller and his fellow screenwriters Brendan McCarthy and Nico Lathouris. But alas, Max was right. Hope is a mistake.” (The Cinephiliac)

OK, so is there anything to be gleaned out from here?

Firstly, hope is a mistake only if not followed through.
Yes, people might get mad if not able to fix what’s broken.
But there are alternatives.
Like next time fail better.
This way even if you don’t succeed at least you end up trying. Way better than locked up in a loony bin, specially so if the cell itself is of your own making.

Secondly, the 98% approval rate on Rotten Tomatoes bears a very clear message.
The audience is fed up. Basically with everything.

I just hope people will find a way to vent their grievances before they flare up and that the powers that be pay attention before the things go too far down the Fury Road.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, fail better, Frames of mind, Social justice

The Wisdom of Jubilee, Forgiveness, and Forgetting

May 26, 2015 //
0
Categories Uncategorized
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »