{"id":4981,"date":"2018-06-15T21:32:12","date_gmt":"2018-06-16T05:32:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/?p=4981"},"modified":"2018-06-15T21:32:12","modified_gmt":"2018-06-16T05:32:12","slug":"things-glen-found-interesting-volume-156","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/archives\/2018\/06\/15\/things-glen-found-interesting-volume-156","title":{"rendered":"Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 156"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

On Fridays I share articles\/resources about broad cultural, societal and theological issues. Be sure to see the explanation and disclaimers at the bottom. I welcome your suggestions. If you read something fascinating please pass it my way.<\/p>\n

Also, 156 is three sets of 52, which means I\u2019ve been doing this for a little over three years now (I sometimes take a week or two off). Yay!<\/p>\n

Things Glen Found Interesting<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Mr. Rogers Had a Simple Set of Rules for Talking to Children<\/a> (Maxwell King, The Atlantic): \u201c1. \u2018State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.\u2019 Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.<\/em> 2. \u201cRephrase in a positive manner,\u201d as in It is good to play where it is safe. <\/em>3. \u201cRephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.\u201d As in, Ask your parents where it is safe to play.\u201d <\/em>There are several more rules, most equally good for talking to adults.<\/li>\n
  2. The Lifespan of a Lie<\/a> (Ben Blum, Medium): \u201cThe appeal of the Stanford prison experiment seems to go deeper than its scientific validity, perhaps because it tells us a story about ourselves that we desperately want to believe: that we, as individuals, cannot really be held accountable for the sometimes reprehensible things we do.\u201d The article claims, convincingly, that the Stanford Prison Experiment did not happen at all the way we have been taught. Wow.<\/li>\n
  3. When Diversity Means Uniformity<\/a> (Lionel Shriver, The Spectator): \u201cWill Norman, London\u2019s \u2018walking and cycling commissioner\u2019, bemoaned the fact that too many cyclists in the city are white, male and middle-class. \u2018The real challenge for London cycling,\u2019 he declared, \u2018is diversity.\u2019 As opposed to building more cycle lanes for everybody<\/em>, or fixing potholes lethal to everybody\u2019s <\/em>wheel rims, Norman regards his principal function as increasing black and minority ethnic ridership.\u201d This anecdote is not the focus of the article.<\/li>\n
  4. Of Boys and Toys<\/a> (Leonard Sax, Institute For Family Studies): \u201c\u2026they found that little children\u2014boys especially\u2014had barely a clue which gender they belonged to, even when the psychologists used the simplest nonverbal prompts. Kids under two years of age score only slightly above chance in assigning themselves or other kids to the correct gender. Nevertheless, Serbin\u2019s group found that children\u2019s toy preferences are firmly in place by this age, especially among boys. When the experimenters offered boys a truck or a doll, most boys chose the truck. In fact, boys preferred trucks over dolls more strongly than girls preferred dolls over trucks. That ought to be surprising if you buy into gender schema theory because 18-month-old girls were more likely than boys to be able to classify themselves and other children by gender. If gender schema theory is correct, the girls should show a stronger preference for gender-typical toys because girls this age are more likely to know that they are, in fact, girls. But the reality is just the opposite.\u201d<\/li>\n
  5. Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Lawsuit Says<\/a> (Hadley Green, New York Times): \u201cThey compare Harvard\u2019s treatment of Asian-Americans with its well-documented campaign to reduce the growing number of Jews being admitted to Harvard in the 1920s. Until then, applicants had been admitted on academic merit. To avoid adopting a blatant quota system, Harvard introduced subjective criteria like character, personality and promise. The plaintiffs call this the \u2018original sin of holistic admissions.\u2019\u201d What are the odds they are the only highly-selective university to do this?<\/li>\n
  6. Conservative Religious Leaders Are Denouncing Trump Immigration Policies<\/a> (Laurie Goodstein, New York Times): \u201cA coalition of evangelical groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, sent a letter to President Trump on June 1 pleading with him to protect the unity of families and not to close off all avenues to asylum for immigrants and refugees fleeing danger.\u201d