Skip to main content

I've been on a kick lately seeking out some intellectual entertainment.  Specifically, things to watch or listen to (my reading list truthfully needs no supplement; it is already over-capacity to the point where I am close to admitting that I'm never actually going to read all this stuff).

I've been on a documentary binge (I think The House I Live In is still the best one I've seen in a while), TED talks (watch this one if you just want experience a few minutes of earnest child-like wonder), RSA lectures (See the ones about Strategy or "The True Cost of Economics), author interviews (See the NPR's interview with Karen Russell)

I've been doing some free on-line courses in areas of interest, etc.  I'd like to find some really good podcasts but I've struggled to locate anything that isn't some amateurish rehash of a conventional news format, a self-made soapbox from which someone is transparently pushing an agenda or just stunningly poorly done.  There has to be a good lecture series out there, I just know it.  

In fact, if anyone else has some other sources they can recommend, I'm always on the look out for new things and would appreciate any guidance.  I'll pass on anything with even the faintest whiff of some kind of political outrage generator.  I don't want to read about how bad the Republicans are or how some other thing that is singularly designed just to anger the viewer.

Particularly if it is about Food and Food Issue or Energy.  I'll watch, listen to or read anything.  (Here is one on how our historical relationship with food has worked to design the very cities in which we live.  Not exactly "Fast Food Naiton" by any means but I found it absolutely fascinating)

Anyway, jump the fold to see one simple 15 minute talk that has really had me thinking for the past month since I watched it.  I think it is one of the most accurate ways to think about some of the root problems in this country, disentangled from our normal repetitive cycle of Red vs. Blue.

I should start by freely and openly confessing that I am a MASSIVE fan of Michael Sandel.  Not only is the man glaringly intelligent but his mode of speaking and lecturing is extroadinary.  I could probably watch him talk about just about anything and still enjoy it.

But here, I think he truly touches on a core subject.  The ubiquitous presence of market forces and market thinking in our lives and the effects that has on our core levels of society.

Its a little under 15 minutes.  Take time when you can really sit and watch.  And listen.  And think.  

The quote that has been echoing in by brain is

"Marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives."
If you are interested in this topic, I urge you to also listen to Dr Philip Roscoe speak in a similar vein.

If we could cut all the accusatory strident bickering that passes for political discourse in this country and try to actually discuss an issue, I think this is one that is worthy of more thought.

Just thought I'd share....

Originally posted to Wisper on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:07 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Something More Deeply Wrong About Marketizing. (20+ / 0-)

    You've heard that corporations are sociopathic but really it's markets as well.

    Humans --all organisms-- and our million year descended cultures are rich in mechanisms that reward both action and restraint, according to circumstances. That's what's allowed humanity to thrive from the bounties to scarcities and from lush jungles to frigid poles and baking equatorial deserts.

    This has carried forward into the hunter-gatherer and early agricultural societies that survived into the early industrial age, most obviously here with the North American native peoples and practices of some that included planning for the 7th generation into the future.

    Native cultures imposed brakes against over depletion of resources in many situations for example. And in the most trivial type of example, even our own culture retains vestiges of reward for restraint. For example you will strengthen social bonds if you refrain from grabbing all the best food at the dinner table, or if an acquaintance spots you observing a small transgression and notices that you refrain from spreading news of it.

    Developed-world businesses and markets however can generate rewards only through action. Saving and investment don't count; in those cases we are merely paying others to act in our stead, and counting on a portion of the profit of their action.

    Otherwise, there's no mechanism for restraint in markets. If your company won't grab all the food on the table, your competitor will, and you go out of business.

    An individual that lacked mechanisms of restraint is regarded as sick, sociopathic, and often has severe restraints imposed on them for the safety ofthemselves and society.

    And that's the most fundamental reason why market thinking is dangerous to apply to any activity. At its core, market activity is solely a drive to acquire and exploit to the extreme.

    Our earliest social experiences in life involve the "trade," an exchange of possessions or favors with others. And from our earliest trading activity, we learn that trading is awash in risks of exploitation to the point of fraud and robbery by others.

    And this is the type of thinking and worldview we want to bring to everything from child rearing, education, dating, our debates in the public square, and healing??

    Our earliest experience of markets is one that capitalism has had to construct society's most extensive propaganda system to make us forget our first and most instructive experience with markets:

    That markets are profoundly risky and dangerous, and must not be approached without strict rules and protections enforced by plenty of adult supervision.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:31:12 AM PDT

    •  Hmm.. I think I'm partially unconvinced (12+ / 0-)

      This is modern demonization hurled at contemporary exploitative markets.  And perhaps justifiably so.

      But the nature of market thinking hinges on the ebb and flow of supply and demand.  I'm talking at a rudimentary Adam Smithian level.  It is a rational approach to assess and interact with scarcity and it is an often accurate cognitive model to deal with valuation, motivation, etc.

      Your central focus on restraint evokes more of a sense of vestigial Puritanism then some evolutionary human trait.  

      I think may agree with your overall point, though I doubt with your level of vehemence, but I would approach more from a game theory perspective.  

      I would submit that the societal flaw in markets is the ingrained flaw of being mechanism that determines "winners" and "losers".  Once this model is established there is no reason why anyone would "play" without maximizing their chances of winning.  Otherwise, why play?  

      I personally have this problem when playing games with friends and family.  They see playing cards as a diversionary activity whose real purpose is to sit around a table and chat.  I see it as a pre-determined set of rules and contest, the objective of which is to defeat the opposing players through the established turn-mechanics of the game.  

      From my point of view, why else even play?  If you aren't trying to win you are just wasting your own time and confusing the game for other people.  And you know what?  I win.  A lot.  It has become a running joke in my house that I should not be allowed to play games.

      When this is brought to real-world societal situations like the national economy or public policy the same pattern and consequences go from simply beating my father-in-law at hearts for the 33rd straight time to truly devastating large swaths of the population just because they happened to "lose".

      This has been my argument against the notion of privatizing schools in order to "encourage competition".  Yes market forces will engender competition to establish winners and losers, but the education of children is not an area where I think we should deliberately make sure there will always be LOSERS.  

      Like I said, I think we may be on the same general side here, but your casual use of the word "Sociopath" makes your argument less compelling.

      But the extracted repercussions of this that Sandel illuminates in the video transcend issues of simple wealth disparity and show how such a divergence actively undermines the very essence of how we define the word "Society".

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 08:03:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't even come down to zero-sum (5+ / 0-)

        The analogy of playing card games with relatives is cute but not necessarily adequate.  A market transaction is not always (not even usually) a zero-sum game with a winner and a loser.  It's simply a trade.

        I give you something you need, and you give me something I need in return.  That's how markets work.  It's not at all like a card game.  In fact, a business that treats its partners and clients as adversaries to be conquered will go out of business quickly.

        There is nothing wrong with markets, as you and the TED talker (forgot his name and don't recognize him -- sorry) point out.  It's just that market dynamics shouldn't be applied to every "transaction."  Kids should read for the love of reading, not to get paid.  We should protect the environment because we need clean air and water and to preserve the aesthetic beauty of it (among other reasons), not because we can make more money in the long term by doing so (though this is most likely true).  As the speaker points out, market dynamics are about individual entities filling their own needs, and the primary loss is the notion that "we're all in this together."  We have lost that.

        Markets are inherently individualistic, even when functioning as they should, i.e., not with "winners and losers."  We have lost a social conscience and a social consciousness in applying market dynamics to every area of our lives.  

        Thanks for the diary. It is a really interesting subject!

        They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

        by CharlieHipHop on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:52:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have notice this cuts both ways (7+ / 0-)

      I have noticed this is almost common ground between conservative friends and myself; except they call the market forces they don't like "liberal". The best example might be the entertainment industry. Britney Spears is how the liberals are ruining things for everyone. Naturally I have plenty of examples of sociopathic market forces I might label, right wing (or just plain evil).

      So the difficult thing becomes articulating this to them. That the market is itself the sociopath. Empowering corporations with personhood is not in the interests of either side.  

  •  Thank You Wisper! (4+ / 0-)

    I don't have a lot of time right now but hotlisted the article after scanning!

    This is my cup of tea too!

    Do alot of ted and online researching and reading etc.

    Thanks a lot a good resource for links and more constructive use of time!

  •  Before TED, there was Feynman... (18+ / 0-)

    On a more sciency note, there's this series of seven lectures on physics, given by Richard Feynman at Cornell in 1964 available here:

    Tuva Website

    The website production is excellent, scrolling text accompanies the video and there are side notes with links to other relevant material.

    They're well worth watching - entertaining and informative information from one of the truly great thinkers of the twentieth century.

  •  Thought provoking (8+ / 0-)

    Especially in view of the latest SCOTUS decision on money as speech. He says we need to debate how we value certain common "goods" (as in morally good, not tangible goods); but we may have passed the point where there is another side to debate with. Those who are willing to use their money to further separate themselves from the common-weal presumably see no need to "debate" the merits.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:38:59 AM PDT

  •  So, Michael Sandel gets it down to (4+ / 0-)

    understanding that the market cannot be used as a tool to put a value on the meaning of public life and goes on to say that we need to debate on how we are going to value goods and to do this we need to go back to shared lives.  By shared lives he means rubbing elbows in common places and gives a partial list of: work, live, shop, school.)

    He says that that when we live separated lives, we cannot discuss and debate for the common good of society.  Not an elixir but a first step to starting the process of addressing the inequalities of life that go unnoticed by econmic classes above the harsh inequalities.

    If only we could get people to rub elbows.  But we are a society of working toward the goal of NOT rubbing elbows.  Catch-22.

    The lower economic class live and have schools in areas more prone to violence and other crimes.  No one wants to go to those areas.  That leaves work and shopping.  Work is very separated into classes, not much hope there.  Shopping.  Many lower economic residential areas do not have places to shop.  So those people come to the middle class shopping areas.  So perhaps some mingling to happen there, but very limited I would think.  In addition, many middle class people do not visit their local shopping places to avoid rubbing elbows with the lower class.

    Which of these places would be the easiest to change to get elbows to rub?

    I would say that schools are the best and perhaps last hope for this fix involving the mixing of people of different economic classes.  So here in Michigan, we have a things called "schools of choice" where a school district can offer an empty seat to a student outside of that district, but within the county.  In addition, the economic downturn in the early 2000s had a lot of people renting their houses instead of selling, so some of those homes rented out to ecomomically disadvantaged people (some Section 8) whose children are now in the local school district.

    Which leads me to saying yet again, the hope lies in our youth.  They are the ones doing the mixing.  They are the ones with more open minds and more accepting of differences.  They are more inviting to everyone which allows those being invited to accept with more hopefulness for their futures.

     I also really like TED (Technology, Entertainment & Design) and also like what Michael Sandel has to say.  Good food for thought.

    Thanks to Wisper for bringing this here.

    1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

    by alwaysquestion on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:36:35 AM PDT

    •  One could argue that it used to be "work" (4+ / 0-)

      People would work side by side with those of higher income (specialists. management and executives) and those of lower (entry level employees, lower paying positions, etc) but the literal fact of working side by side or working toward a common goal gave them a means by which to relate, get to know and appreciate the people around them.

      Now we have a yawning gap between corporate strata and a deliberate effort to remove and relocate the lower level jobs.  

      Schools are certainly a source of hope and while I agree that it is the youth that are the most open to this, it is also the youth that has the least amount of say or ability to bring this about.  Parents are working relentlessly to make sure their kids are in the better neighborhoods, the good schools with the right friends, etc.  They are relegated to living out their parents contrived segregation.

      Some how the cycle has to be broken.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:47:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Safety. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aaa T Tudeattack
        Parents are working relentlessly to make sure their kids are in the better neighborhoods, the good schools with the right friends, etc.  They are relegated to living out their parents contrived segregation.
        Parents think mostly about safety.  I am a mother of one daughter.  Of course I chose a place to live that gives her a safe place to go to school.  I do not think that it is at all logical to think parents will start taking chances with their kids on that issue if they can avoid it.  The answer cannot be that people drop their kids into a violent school situation.  The only answer is that kids that are ecomomically disadvantaged get dropped into a better school district where they are safer and have better resources.  But even at that, those safer schools can only handle a certain number of disadvantaged kids before that school becomes a mirror image of the poor school they sought to escape.  There is a tipping point.

        1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

        by alwaysquestion on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:59:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Michael Sandel develops this further in his book (3+ / 0-)

      "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets". Michael Sandel is an amazing instructor, especially in the use of the Socratic method. If you haven't seen the famous videos of his "Justice: What's the Right Thing To Do?" course at Harvard please give them a look and you'll see a master educator at work. I wish he could just talk to the right-wing of the Supreme Court about what money can't buy--but I don't think anything could penetrate their ossified brains at this point.

      But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, ... there are few die well that die in a battle; ... Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; — Shakespeare, ‘Henry V’

      by dewtx on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 09:38:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I suppose next you will tell me,,, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, cotterperson, dewtx

    that my employer really doesn't have my best interests at heart and won't really reward me for working hard?

    "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

    by irate on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:37:18 AM PDT

  •  Old news... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, jestbill

    Not worth listening to unless Sandel proposes a real solution.

    Problem identification is only the first step toward problem solving.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:44:24 AM PDT

    •  I agree in part, but first steps (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      k9disc, cotterperson

      need to be widely talked about instead of avoided.  So it seems to me the solution will never get here if we do not talk more openly about the problem and get everyone in on solving part of it.

      He talks about rubbing elbows more with people of differing economic levels and that is a major thing to change.  But if that can't happen, how do we get at least the message of inequality through in such a way that leaves people with a far more solid understanding of how inequality is perpetuated.

      1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

      by alwaysquestion on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:08:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This problem and many others have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        been known and discussed for years now. What we need at this point is solutions.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Centuries. (0+ / 0-)

          I laughed.
          So many people listening to that talk would nod their heads in agreement and go invite their neighbors to church.

          The real problem is that we had lead in the gasoline.  It has caused brain damage nationwide.  All we can do is try not to destroy the place before newer, less damaged people can take over.

          How else to explain that the first criticism was not that kids would cheat?  People who are so sure that there are bad guys everywhere (liberals/Muslims/Communists) who are trying to do them harm can't imagine that a school principal might try to cook the books to avoid being fired. Or that the CIA would lie.  Or that the DEA would.

          If someone says he wants to lower taxes, people actually imagine that he means their taxes, not just his own.

          Brain damage.

          "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

          by jestbill on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 08:49:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yea, step 1 is so not important at this time. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, alwaysquestion

      As a society, we have a real clear understanding of how markets affect society.

      What a rough comment for a very thoughtful lecture.

      The problem has to be identified before it can be understood.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:15:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What a waste of time. (0+ / 0-)

        If the speaker devoted the time and thought  to identify the problem why didn't he go ahead and solve it? Wouldn't that be the true public service? But bitching is easier than going to work and solving a problem.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:54:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A first step that most haven't taken (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      given the ever pervasive "trust the market" sentiment and outright dismissal of alternatives. Real solutions come about through consideration, discourse and the willingness to abandon what does not work. Our elected leadership seems unwilling to engage in any of the above, so taking the first step and identifying the problem on the individual level is well worth the effort.

      "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities" - Adam Smith

      by Jesse Douglas on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:26:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My God, media of all types have (0+ / 0-)

        disgorged millions, maybe billions, of words in recent years lamenting the problems of the markets. Any adult who does not understand that the market is not to be trusted is a fool.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:55:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thought Maybe... (5+ / 0-)

    I'd try "A Century of the Self" that's an amazing documentary.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:50:48 AM PDT

  •  A market society makes marketers winners.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, k9disc, cotterperson

    ....and those with other aptitudes losers.  Thanks for a thoughtful diary.  There is a different way to organize life and experience and ideas, and I agree collectively there is a chance to find it in communities of good will on the web.

  •  Payment for learning cannot be a direct (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, cotterperson


    You don't tell them what the going rate is. You don't tell the student "I'll give you $40 per A."

    What you do instead is to offer reinforcement on a random or a sliding scale so the value is not so easily computed.

    What happens when you telegraph your hand is that there is a value judgement with concrete terms,"I'm terrible in math. I'm never getting an A... screw it, it's only $40

    A best buy gift card for a C+ in math last semester - "Nice job, kid, I know you hate math. Knock yourself out.

    You are buying a new car. Kid is going to get your old one. Kid gets a B in math, so you attach that car giving to the math performance,"Hey kid, that's terrific, a B in math... let's go for a spin," and the kid comes home and gets his car.

    So now the reinforcement of performance in math runs a gamut between a best buy card and a new car.

    Math becomes a serious opportunity, and the kid is not likely to make a value judgement based upon an agreed upon cost.

    This kind of reinforcement creates opportunity, which is a super powerful motivator.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:08:50 PM PDT

  •  OK, I'll bite! A couple of my faves are... (4+ / 0-)

    ...a TED Talk by Amory Lovins on Reinventing Fire. It's about 27 minutes long. There are several others available w/ mostly the same content (and a few minutes shorter), but slightly different emphases. I also like this TEDx Talk at SMU in Dallas TX pretty well.

    The other I'd recommend is Bill McKibben's 2013 sermon at the Riverside Church in NYC, entitled "God's Taunt". It's about 22 minutes long and (IMHO) effectively captures much of the moral imperative behind fighting climate change and denial.

    I've watched them all several times. On the intertwined topics of energy and environmental sustainability, to me, McKibben nails the "Why?" question and Lovins the "How?".

    Thanks for asking; I hope you'll like at least some of these and I look forward to trying some of your suggestions.

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:21:58 PM PDT

    •  In the same vein (4+ / 0-)

      oh, first, THANKS for the suggestions.. they sound awesome.  I have seen the McKibben one, and several others of him on the topic, but I will definitely be watching Reinventing Fire.

      On Climate issues, I would caution though that Allan Savory's TED Talk has gotten a lot of negative attention and started a bit of a backlash against TED for providing a stage for pseudoscience.  I'm still researching Savory's work but it is not quite as miraculous or straight forward as he makes it out to be.

      More compelling, for me, was Dr. John Liu's full-legth film Green Gold or Lawton's Greening the Desert.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Despite your piled up reading list I think you (4+ / 0-)

    skip over a few volumes and read Rebecca Goldstein's "Incompleteness".  It's about Kurt Godel and his theorems .  
    It changed the way I see everything.

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:31:39 PM PDT

  •  I should give you our show as well: (4+ / 0-)

    It's a 1/2 hour weekly show that features, pretty much, our entire dog training foundation. This link goes to Season 2, which we've just recapped.

    I'm getting ready to start Season 3 in a month or so.

    This was all planned, written, shot, edited, and marketed by myself - weekly. It's a pretty decent show, and there's a ton of great dog training stuff in there...

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:54:13 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for this. We have a small (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      k9disc, dewtx

      barking ploblem.  Otherwise our little buddy is perfect.  I think (due to his past experience: stray, shelter, illness in the shelter, etc) he is frightened of people.  I've tried distraction methods advised by some trainers, but he is too hysterical.  Perhaps I can learn more techniques to help him.

      •  Distraction does not lead to extinction. That is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a huge problem with solving these problems.

        Reinforcing dog's choice leads to extinction.

        It's a good show. Give me a shout via the contact page if you have any questions... peace~

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I will definitely take a look (0+ / 0-)

      I have a Doberman rescue that we have done so much with to get her back to normal dog behavior.

      Solved the over-submissiveness, submissive wetting, destructive behavior when alone, over-excited face biting, leash walking, food issues, etc.

      She's a whole new beautiful dog.  She's got her breed instinctual protectiveness of the house.  She knows how to take cues from us when strangers enter.  She knows her boundaries and perimeters that she likes to patrol and vigilantly guard against the pending and inevitable Great Squirrel Invasion.  She understands how to play and not just submissively release the tug-toy whenever I touch it.  She is awesome.

      Two things left that I'm not sure how to conquer:

      1.  Car rides are an anxiety marathon of unceasing whining, barking and trembling.  ...and yet... always excited for the chance to get in the car.  LOVES IT!  Runs to the Jeep waiting to be able to hop in and then... FREAK OUT. weird, so weird...

      2.  All out death-inflicting aggression to any other dog or small animal.  Not "Oh let them sort it out" or standard dominance hierarchy establishment.  No.. just... there is another dog.  It must die.  NOW.  GO FOR THE THROAT!!!!   Every time.   SOOOooo.... suffice it to say we aren't "Dog Park" people anymore.

      I'll check your vids!

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:18:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Canadian Program Regenisis (0+ / 0-)

    This program ran from 2004/5 to 2008/9.  It revolves around a fictional multinational agency devoted to hunting genetic and biological problems, some natural some man made.  You can watch all four seasons on Hulu.  

    I think this is right up your alley.  

  •  Thanks for this (0+ / 0-)

    And you said you're taking online courses so you probably already know about Coursera but just in case.

    They offer so many really interesting classes and they're FREE so you can get a nice introduction to a subject and find tons of resources for further free exploration.

    Divide And Conquer only works if we allow ourselves to be divided--let's not

    by EverGrateful on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 04:46:29 PM PDT

  •  I am pondering, great diary ! (0+ / 0-)

    “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

    by ozsea1 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:09:46 PM PDT

  •  Excellent (0+ / 0-)

    In other words, do we want to live in a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing?

    These Republican gluttons of priviledge are cold men ... They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship -- Harry Truman

    by Laborguy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:35:34 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site