E!!

I recently ran across a quotation that conveys something I have often experienced since losing my sister in November, and which I have noticed in others – most recently, a new friend – who have also lost a loved one to death:

It is an exquisite and beautiful thing in our nature, that, when the heart is touched and softened by some tranquil happiness or affectionate feeling, the memory of the dead comes over it most powerfully and irresistibly. It would seem almost as though our better thoughts and sympathies were charms, in virtue of which the soul is enabled to hold some vague and mysterious intercourse with the spirits of those whom we loved in life.

– Charles Dickens

Yes.

Since Krista disappeared from this earth, every joyful moment, every deep laugh, every quiet contemplation of beauty summons her memory.  I do not know how long this will continue, and I cannot decide whether I wish it to stop.

It’s like dancing a few perfect steps to a lovely but wistful song.  The moment is exquisite, but joy and grief strike a sudden heartwrenching chord and you find yourself nearly overcome.  Do you go on dancing or walk from the floor?  Either way, your heart is pierced with bittersweet.

And the song plays on.

(excerpted by E!!)

AN ACADEMY CLASSIC

On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B

Editor

Whether dealing with monkeys, rats, or human beings, it is hardly controversial to state that most organisms seek information concerning what activities are rewarded, and then seek to do (or at least pretend to do) those things, often to the virtual exclusion of activities not rewarded. The extent to which this occurs of course will depend on the perceived attractiveness of the rewards offered, but neither operant nor expectancy theorists would quarrel with the essence of this notion.

Nevertheless, numerous examples exist of reward systems that are fouled up in that the types of behavior rewarded are those that the rewarded is trying to discourage, while the behavior desired is not being rewarded at all.

Fouled Up Systems

The American citizenry supposedly wants its candidates for public office to set forth operative goals, making their proposed programs clear, and specifying sources and uses of funds. However, since operative goals are lower in acceptance, and since aspirants to public office need acceptance (from at least 50.1 percent of the people), most politicians prefer to speak only of official goals, at least until after the election. They of course would agree to speak at the operative level if “punished” for not doing so. The electorate could do this by refusing to support candidates who do not speak at the operative level. Instead, however, the American voter typically punishes (withholds support from) candidates who frankly discuss where the money will come from, rewards politicians who speak only of official goals, but hopes that candidates (despite the reward system) will discuss the issues operatively.

(Hat Tip:  Joe Carter @ Culture11)