Educational Discrimination of a Different Kind
by Nathan Petrus
An issue which is commonly blogged about is educational discrimination on ethnic lines.
With such volatile competition, it is no wonder that another form of educational discrimination is normally ignored by the masses…
This is none other than discrimination by educational stream.
The following quote tells all:
“At lower secondary, students who score a string of As are considered suitable for the Science stream and the rest are placed in the Arts stream.” – NST Report
‘Tis indeed a sad but true fact in our country that the Arts stream is seen as a receptacle for “second-grade students”. The world of education in Malaysia is divided into those in the Science and Arts streams, with the former being exalted far above the latter. All students who do well in the PMR are siphoned off to the Science stream, while those regarded as less academically-capable are sent to the Arts.
The notion that the Arts is less academically-rigourous than the Sciences has no basis whatsoever. To be frank, it’s a load of rubbish. Yet many Malaysian parents continue to steer their children in the direction of engineering and medicine (with its related counterparts: dentistry and pharmacy). [it should be noted that most do not aspire for their children to be real scientists, with the exception of the field of biochemistry, which has received much press and government propaganda] And what of economics, sociology, anthropology, literature, history, et al? These are for the less intelligent, the less gifted… in other words the lower-class of the educational pyramid.
It evades me how and why this unacceptable state of affairs could come to being. Indeed, it has become a system that discriminates against those who are intelligent, but are more suited for the Arts. They have been told from the moment they step into school that physics is the realm of geniuses (Newton! Einstein! Hawking!), while literature is for idiots (or weirdos like Shakespeare, Chaucer and T. S. Eliot). [And what about Philosophy? It's no wonder that there are zero faculties for the study of this vital subject in our local universities. For shame! For shame!]
But for sure, the infamous Dasar 60-40 (60-40 Policy) of the Ministry of Education has contributed to this completely flawed system. The unimportance of Arts to the policy makers is evident in their dismissal of the stream as only worthy of 40% of all upper-secondary students, while 60% must be channeled to the Almighty Science. My secondary school principal was so proud of the school’s policy of 100-0. Yes, there was no Arts classes in Form 4 and Form 5 in my school, and that was something to boast and celebrate about.
We now face the same question as Lenin, “What is to be done?”
First, we must reverse the damage of the ridiculous 60-40 Policy. By forcing more students into the Sciences, we have spat on one half of the whole world of education. Equality of the streams is vital for our survival!
Second, I propose the setting up of schools in the vein of the Maktab Rendah Sains MARA (MARA Science Colleges), but dedicated to the study of the arts. Yes, it is time that we have Maktab Rendah Sastera MARA (MARA Arts Colleges). If seperate institutions are unfeasible, then we should introduce arts subjects in these institutions. [Implicit in this proposal is the opening of these institutions to non-Bumiputras, but that is a issue that needs an article of its own.]
Lastly, and most importantly, we must rid ourselves of the stigma against Arts students. It is now the case that a student is automatically looked down on if he or she divulges that he or she is studying Arts. Parents must cease from discouraging their children from pursuing Arts subjects. Teachers must do the same for their students.
Let us hope that it is not too late. The time is ripe for a counter-revolution!
#1 by Kingkong on Friday, 25 May 2007 - 2:10 pm
“ One works (say) 7 hours a day, imagine not liking what one does, and in many cases hating and being stressed by what one does, —-substitute satisfactions that money could buy, appears to me to be a roundabout arduous way of trying to be happy but end up having poor health instead due to stress.
On the other hand if one has a liking and passion for one’s calling, one can put in the extra hours at home after work (when it is m music instead of drudgery), meet deadlines of work commitments to employers’ or customers’ satisfaction without the stress but the sense of pride and challenge of a work well done, where the hours spent in working (after working hours) are themselves a pleasure. “ –Jeffrey –
It is a fallacy to say that one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the great composer, passionate with his work died at an age of 35 on his piano. Dragon Lee, very passionate about his Kung Fu film died at about the same age. I would rather relate poor health with overwork whether it is work on passion or work on necessity. How one looks after one’s own health is the key.
If there is choice, everybody would like to combine passion with work. Just like my Yoga teacher who is passionate about Yoga and runs successfully a chain of Yoga schools and is making good money; I told him that he was a very lucky man that he could combine his passion with bread winning. Yes that is a luxury and not everybody has a chance for that. And it is true that if you are really good everyone would try to get you and business flourishes and money comes naturally. Again, the key word is “good “. Sometimes you can have passion but you may not be very good at it as it has something to do with aptitude or inclination or an edge over the fierce competition.
Some people may be very obsessed with money, but I believe majority just want to attain some kind of financial freedom and enjoy a reasonably good standard of living. For that you need a good job ( related to the demand of what you learn and acquire ) for a start with a higher than average income in order to have sufficient saving for investments such that one could get oneself out of the rat race as early as possible. The ideal state will be finally your money is making money for you and the recurring income is able to sustain your need. That is also a kind of passion.
#2 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 25 May 2007 - 2:33 pm
Nowhere in my previous comments did I suggest, as what Kingkong is trying to portray me as saying, that money is not important, or that the society does not need rich people. What I was referring to was an OBSESSION with wealth. I think Jeffrey’s excellent posting has said it all: passion and a sense of calling should be the primary motivating force and great financial reward may follow as a natural consequence.
I agree with Kingkong that it makes good sense to prioritise science subjects in Malaysia, given that it is still developing. But it’s high time to get more people into research. Where are all the financial resources for doing research? In UK, many scientific research projects are funded by industries that stand to gain from them. A substantial portion of taxpayers’ money has also gone into the allocations for various national research councils. Is Malaysia really so lacking in these resources? I don’t know, but it seems to me that much depends on what the government and the business tycoons prioritise. But I don’t think business tycoons and industrialists in Malaysia can afford to continue to fail to see the importance of the symbiotic relations between industry and research in this era of knowledge economy.
You can always cite some examples of generous Chinese businessmen in Malaysia and Singapore. But, as what Kingkong said earlier in relation to another point (we are talking about probability [or more precisely, statistical generalisation, rather than categorical exceptionless universal generalisations. Cf. All Chinese are XXX with Many Chinese are XXX, the latter of which was what I mentioned in an earlier comment]). Yes, there are always exceptions. There are always some exceptionally successful sportsmans, exceptionally successful AHSS graduates in developing countries, exceptionally successful businessmen who did not do well at school. But as what Kingkong rightly pointed out, they are exceptions. LIKEWISE, the citing of a few generous Chinese tycoons who have contributed to charities does not show that my remark that many Chinese Malaysians are narrowed-minded and self-centred in their obsession with wealth is unfair.
‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ could be a very dangerous maxim. I’m sure this is the underlying principle that guided Samy’s response to the leakage issue. Kit Siang: ‘It’s incredible that there are so many problems after RM100 million worth of renovation. It brings shame to our country.’ Samy: ‘Nothing to be ashamed of! Leakage is normal. It happens in other countries too.’ ‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ may also be the maxim that best explains Bung-Said’s behaviour and their subsequent responses to criticism. A sense of shame (when it is due) is very important to maintain our moral awareness. So I think I’m quite well justified in being ashamed of some undesirable features that characterise many Chinese Malaysians (note: I didn’t say ‘all…’).
#3 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 25 May 2007 - 3:46 pm
I think Kingkong is right that being very good at a certain field is a pre-requisite for pursuing that passion as your career. Otherwise, it would be more sensible to pursue it as a hobby.
Financial freedom is also important. But that depends on how you define ‘reasonably comfortable living’. If that means having an average income that is sufficient for the support of a family, and at the same time you’re really good at a certain field, I think you should pursue it as a career even if it doesn’t lead to great financial reward, one that enables you to live a luxurious life. Of course, that depends on what your values are. For a hardcore materialist, what I say in the previous sentence is an anathema.
#4 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 25 May 2007 - 7:43 pm
“ One works (say) 7 hours a day, imagine not liking what one does, and in many cases hating and being stressed by what one does, â€â€-substitute satisfactions that money could buy, appears to me to be a roundabout arduous way of trying to be happy but end up having poor health instead due to stress.
‘On the other hand if one has a liking and passion for one’s calling, one can put in the extra hours at home after work (when it is m music instead of drudgery), meet deadlines of work commitments to employers’ or customers’ satisfaction without the stress but the sense of pride and challenge of a work well done, where the hours spent in working (after working hours) are themselves a pleasure. “ –Jeffrey –
It is a fallacy to say that one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the great composer, passionate with his work died at an age of 35 on his piano. Dragon Lee, very passionate about his Kung Fu film died at about the same age. I would rather relate poor health with overwork whether it is work on passion or work on necessity. How one looks after one’s own health is the key.’ – Kingkong
I don’t think what Jeffrey says (as quoted by Kingkong) amounts to a claim that ‘one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not’. What Jeffrey says could be interpreted more charitably in this way: ‘ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (i.e. given that all the relevant factors involved in one who works with passion and one who does not are the same, e.g. both have the same life style etc), one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not’. The qualifier ‘all else being equal’ is important and it pre-empts all Kingkong’s arguments againts Jeffrey on this point. True enough, those who take good care of their health are more likely to enjoy good health, whether they are passionate about their work or not. But this does not refute’s Jeffrey’s point, which can be interpreted as saying that, given that both (the passionate workers and the workers who have no passion) take good care of their health (and share other relevant factors), the passionate workers are more likely to enjoy good health than those who have no passion for their work. Given this charitable interpretation (and I think it is important to always take the most charitable reading allowed by the text), I think what Jeffrey suggests is very plausible. Of course, it is yet to be established statistically in empirical studies. But for the purpose of our discussion here, the general impression is good enough.
The ‘all else being equal’ qualifier derives from the principle of controlled experiment, without which one will not be able to exclude the interfering factors.
#5 by Kingkong on Saturday, 26 May 2007 - 1:42 pm
“my remark that many Chinese Malaysians are narrowed-minded and self-centred in their obsession with wealth —“ Lee Wang Yen
“‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ could be a very dangerous maxim. I’m sure this is the underlying principle that guided Samy’s response to the leakage issue. Kit Siang: ‘It’s incredible that there are so many problems after RM100 million worth of renovation. It brings shame to our country.’ Samy: ‘Nothing to be ashamed of! Leakage is normal. It happens in other countries too.’ ‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ may also be the maxim that best explains Bung-Said’s behaviour and their subsequent responses to criticism. A sense of shame (when it is due) is very important to maintain our moral awareness. So I think I’m quite well justified in being ashamed of some undesirable features that characterise many Chinese Malaysians (note: I didn’t say ‘all…’). Lee Wang Yen
“Chinese are notorious for their narrow-mindedness and self-centredness. What we care the most is ‘my own financial security’, ‘my comfortable life’, and ‘my family’s income’, and will do everything to secure all†Lee Wang Yen
I was a bit puzzled why “ Chinese Malaysians “ was brought into the discussion and you feel so ashamed of your own ethnic group. You can’t change your color, your black hair and no matter where you go, you still belong to your own ethnic group. Why should you feel ashamed of your identity when your community people are working hard to save money? If you don’t feel proud of your own identity, no one will feel proud for you. If you feel ashamed of yourself, no one will look up at you.
Samy should feel ashamed because he failed his responsibility to the project management of the country and tax payers suffered a big loss and he still keeps on denying his faults. Bung Said’s behavior is down right sexist and he should be ashamed of as a MP of the country.
But not the Chinese Malaysians who are deprived of much opportunity play on an unequal level to try to get ends meet. For a Chinese Malaysian’s earning of one dollar, thirty cents has to go feeding the parasites. Life is indeed very tough for the Chinese Malaysians who have to live without any subsidy; naturally they have to be very careful about their money. Chinese Malaysians have to cough out more for their kids’ private or overseas higher education which you know is very costly because their kids stand less chance to enter a local university. What shame do you have when your community member has to take care of his own money? Government is always a single biggest employer of a country, and our government has intentionally avoided Chinese Malaysians into the services. It is indeed more difficult for Chinese Malaysians to earn a living. Before you condemn your own community, please give a thought of their situation. You know Kit has been voicing out in the country about this inequality and discrimination continuously. When you know that you are on your own and there isn’t any subsidy or handout to be received, you have to be extra careful about your money for the raining days. Is that guilty?
As regards to whether work on passion is healthier or not, there is no scientific study to verify, Mozart and Dragon Lee which I quoted are cases to dispute otherwise. There is one thing for sure; come to pay day, employees all over the world whether work on passion or work on necessity share the same joy!
There is a popular Chinese saying which goes this way:-
When you have money it does not mean that you can have everything, but without money, you really can have nothing.
#6 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 26 May 2007 - 3:58 pm
As I see it, the debate is not on whether money is important in considering careers to be embarked upon. It is. To say the opposite that money is not important is to renounce the many comforts money provides and to invite the many difficulties not having money invites. Without money, how could anyone maximize the bountiful possibilities that Life itself offers? To renounce money may be ok for the few who has mastered the art of living simply with joy but for the majority not so inspired, it is to abjure life itself. Money then is important, and it is settled: no argument on that.
But isn’t the discussion and debate here about weighing which should be prioritized – monetary rewards and job satisfaction – where both cannot be found in one and a choice (or at least a weightage) has to be made between the two – monetary rewards or job satisfaction – when canvassing two or more available choices of career/calling when one embarks on it, especially at (but not limited to) the beginning of one’s career?
I thought that was the point of argument, isn’t it?
As I understand it, what Lee Wang Yen and I appear to find common ground, is that, when confronted with having to make a choice between considerations of monetary rewards or job satisfaction, it is wiser for the latter to be given more weightage (for the reasons I have set out in my earlier posting).
#7 by Lee Wang Yen on Saturday, 26 May 2007 - 4:50 pm
A sense of shame when it is due is important for moral awareness and improvement. Being ashamed of one’s (or one’s community) narrow-mindedness and/or self-centredness will lead to repentance and improvement in these areas. Being ashamed of a certain undesirable feature of a certain person or a certain community does not mean total dismissal or total denial of the worth of that person or that community. As a matter of fact, I do feel proud about the diligence and resilience of the Chinese community. So no total effacement of the worth of my own ethnic group was implied in my previous comment. Samy should feel ashamed of his irresponsibilities that have led to his failures, not because he should totally deny his own worth, but because such sense of shame should be there to lead to repentance and improvement on that area of his shortcomings. Bung-Said should feel ashamed for the similar reasons. For this reason, we should be very careful in our criticisms of Samy and Bung-Said. Don’t speak as if they are totally worthless. Such exaggerated diatribe is very unhelpful.
Regarding the question of the correlation between passion and health, my point is simply that your arguments against Jeffrey do not work given a charitable intrepretation of Jeffrey’s comment. In debates, a rebuttal of someone’s point by failing to take the most charitable reading of that point will render that rebuttal something akin to a straw-man argument.
I’m not sure whether all who receive the pay will share the same joy. In any case, this does not cast any doubt on the plausibility of Jeffrey’s suggestion that all else being equal, one who works with passion is better off than one who does not.
Having said that, I do think that a lot of your points that reflect your primarily practical concerns sound very sensible though. Although I’m not a pragmatist, I do think that pragmatic considerations are apropriate and even important to a certain extent.
#8 by Kingkong on Saturday, 26 May 2007 - 9:23 pm
We do have some concurrent points and to consolidate our debate, I shall put down as follows:-
1. Money is important. Settled; no argument.
2. Best scenario; possess both monetary reward and job satisfaction or passion. Settled; no argument
But not everybody is so lucky and a choice must be made;
a. Good monetary reward but less job satisfaction.
b. Good job satisfaction but less monetary reward
I would think that this becomes a personal choice depending on one’s personal need. The one who needs money more than job satisfaction would choose a. and vice versa. Agree?
If it is agreed, then happiness has something to do with your personal choice, and it is not necessarily to be specifically PASSION or job satisfaction. In other words, you set up your objective in life or career and you are happy if your objective is achieved.
3. You are happy if your objective is achieved be it money or job satisfaction. Can I say settled; no argument.
I would say health is the way how you look after it; that is another issue.
I am not convinced with Lee Wang Yen’s debate is how he chipped in “Chinese are notorious for their narrow-mindedness and self-centredness†and followed by “ he was ashamed of the self-centredness and narrow-mindedness of my own ethnic group.â€Â
You have to prove rigorously the statement of their narrow-mindedness and self-centreness and even then they and the obsession of wealth are not a crime. Aren’t they? If we don’t do anything wrong, we don’t commit crime and we don’t hurt people, why and what should we be ashamed of?
We agree that both Samy and Bung-Said should be ashamed of what they did, and as regards to the criticism we just leave as it is. Borrowed from TDM’s words,†there are many ways to skin a cat! “
My dear gentlemen, that is all for the time being and good night!
#9 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 2:13 pm
I don’t think one will necessarily be happy when he achieves his objective. A miser who sets out to achieve his target of accumulating wealth may end up very miserable even if he achieves his objective. Achieving your objective may or may not lead to happiness. It depends on the nature of the goal you’ve set and how you achieve it. Happiness is something to do with the process (as well as the end result), not merely the end result. One who works with passion enjoy both the process and the end result. One who set out to achieve wealth without passion in his work may be very miserable or at least feels less happier (than the passionate worker) in the process, even if he achieves his objective in the end result. The joy of the financial reward is outweighed by the misery of the process. But, all else being equal, the passionate worker will enjoy both the process and end result. That’s why I said earlier that Jeffrey’s suggestion that all else being equal, one who works with passion is better off than one who does not sounds plausible.
As I said, a general impression, unless it has been shown otherwise, is good enough in the context of such informal discussions here. I think Kingkong, Jeffrey, and I have been using this implicit principle in our discussions. That’s why all three of us have been alluding to general impressions that are yet to be statistically established through empirical studies (e.g. Kingkong’s generalisation from Mozart, Dragon Lee etc to the link between overwork and poor health, Kingkong’s generalisation that ‘Some people may be very obsessed with money, but I believe majority just want to attain some kind of financial freedom and enjoy a reasonably good standard of living’, Kingkong’s remark that ‘For the sports career, or singing career, one has to be really good to be on the very top. The top places are very limited. For a successful sportsman, there are thousands of those who couldn’t make it, and their lives could be very miserable’, and Kingkong’s claim that ‘.. one thing for sure; come to pay day, employees all over the world whether work on passion or work on necessity share the same joy!’,
Jeffrey’s general impression that passionate worker is overall better off than someone who works without passion, and my generalisation from my many observations to the claim that Chinese are notorious of their self-centredness). All these are statistical generalisations (note: by statistical generalisations here I do not mean generalisations that have been concluded from carefully controlled statistical studies. The term ‘statistical generalisation’ ['X% of A's are B'] is a technical term in logic that is contrasted with universal generalisation ['All A's are B', or 'for all x's, if x is A, then x is B']) that are yet to be established by empirical statistical studies. And there are contexts where only generalisations that have been established by careful statistical studies are admissable. However, ours is a context of informal discussion and to require one’s discussant to prove his one generalisation rigorously while using lots of generalisations himself, some of which have been asserted with a tone of certainty (e.g. ‘…one thing for sure…’) sounds unfair.
As I see it, we have to feel ashamed for some morally undesirable features of ourselves and our community. The morally undesirable is a general class that includes what is morally wrong (doing what one ought not to do) and what is morally bad but not wrong (‘infravetetory acts’ in technical philosophical term). We should beashamed of our morally wrong and morally bad actions or attitudes, for this will lead to repentance and help us to do morally good actions or hold morally good attitudes in the future. One who holds a utilitarian view of ethics will think that there is nothing morally wrong or bad so long as I don’t do anything that actually hurts anybody. When Kingkong says that there is no reason to feel ashamed since the Chinese have not hurt anybody, this may reflect a utilitarian view of ethics. I reject utilitarianism and hold an objectivist view of moral values. But I don’t think we have the space to get into a debate on the philosophical issues of ethics. When Kingkong says that there is no reason to feel ashamed because the Chinese are not commiting any crime in what he sees as their legitimate focus on the accumulation of wealth and what I see as a narrow-minded and self-centred focus, he assumes that only crimes should lead one to feel ashamed of oneself. But I think morally wrong or bad actions or attitudes, whether they are crimes or not, are sufficient to give one a reason to feel ashamed, unless we are happy to define our moral standards according to what’s defined as criminal or non-criminal in a country’s (which country?) laws.
#10 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 2:59 pm
What is implied by one of Kingkong’s remarks is that one will not be happy if he needs money more than job satisfaction but chooses to work for more job satisfaction than monetary reward. There is a grain of truth here.
However, much depends on how you understand the ‘need’ of money. If it means whatever that is sufficient to support oneself and his family, I would say that the proposition of the implication is true. If, however, it means whatever that is sufficient for our quest for a luxurious life, then I’d say that that need cannot be satisfied and the process of satisfying that need may well lead to more dissatisfaction and miseries.
If one needs a lot of money to satisfy his desires for luxury, then he may not be happy even if such a need leads him to choose a job that offers more monetary reward than job satisfaction. This is because one will not be happy when his choice of doing something based on his need is made on the basis of the wrong assessment of his real need. One who thinks that he will be happy only if he lives a luxurious life because he thinks that a luxurious life is what he needs may be wrong (and thus still be unhappy even if he has chosen to do something in line with that perceived need), because human beings may be constituted (psychologically [and spiritually, if you do not hold a physicalist view]) in such a way that they are happier to enjoy what they do with passion (when doing so does not render them unable to make basic ends meet) than to enjoy an extravagant life.
Whether this is so we’ll have to look at what psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and theologians have to say. Can anyone enlighten me on this question: what do these scholars have to say about the question? I vaguely remember (but could well be wrong) that Abraham Marslow (a psycologist?) seems to support that view (i.e. human beings are so constituted that they are happier to enjoy what they do with passion when basic needs have been satisfied than to enjoy a luxurious life that goes well beyond basic necessities).
#11 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 3:10 pm
errata: third paragraph: ‘If one needs a lot of money…even if such a need…’ should have been ‘If one THINKS THAT he needs a lot of money…even if such a PERCEIVED need…’
#12 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 3:34 pm
In short, satisfying real needs will bring more happiness than satisfying perceived but not real needs. So it is not true that someone who perceives that he needs money more than job satisfaction will be happy if he chooses to do something that will result in more money than job satisfaction. I vaguely remember (but could well be wrong) that Abraham Marslow (a pychologist?) seems to have found out in his studies that our real need (beyond basic material needs, which I interpret as an income that is sufficient to support oneself and one’s family) as human beings is a sense of self-actualisation (interpreted as job fulfilment in the contexts of most people) WHEN BASIC MATERIAL NEEDS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. Those who perceive that they need a luxurious life well beyond basic material needs may thus be out of touch with their real needs (beyond basic material needs) of self-actualisation, which will bring them true happiness.
But as a Christian I’ll say that I believe that the highest level of satisfaction comes from one’s relationship with God. As Augustine says, ‘Thou O God hast made us for Thee, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee’. Of course, that is my religious conviction, which I think has very good philosophical justification. So I would say that self-actualisation is only the second highest level of happiness.
#13 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 6:59 pm
This Abraham Maslow was a humanist pychologist. His main contribution to psychology is his Hierarchy of Needs which seeks to explain personality and motivation. At the lowest base of pyramid, what he calls Deficit needs (Physiological and safety/security) in relation to which individual does not feel anything if they are met, but feels anxious if they are not met. Higher up are ‘being needs’ (belonging/love and esteem needs, valuation given to one-self by other people etc) which when fulfilled, they don’t become irrelevant but motivate further as continuing driving force.. At apex is self-actualization ie reaching one’s full potential, at which individual is supposed to embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them, creative and spontaneous in their ideas and actions, rivetted to solving problems whether personal or others as an intellectual exercise and emotional gratification, have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority, have a discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner etc. If not mistaken, he later came out with three other groups of needs (above) actualization (not too sure)? : (i) the need to acquire knowledge, then the need to understand that knowledge (ii) the aesthetic needs (the needs to create and/or experience beauty, balance, structure, etc.) and (iii) self-transcendence needs – sometimes referred to as spiritual needs (As spiritual needs in Maslow books appear to be higher than actualisation, it seems to be similar to what you said about “So I would say that self-actualisation is only the second highest level of happiness”. This level covers both the religious, the agnostic and the atheist, “transcendence” in latter two groups is where the individual is aware of not only his fullest potential, but the fullest potential of human beings at large and probably empathize with their plight in relation to the Human Condition.
Probably relevant to what has been discussed is Maslow’s theory about unfulfilled Deficit needs that can become redirected into neurotic needs. For example, children whose safety needs are not adequately met may grow into adults who compulsively hoard money or possessions. Note: Unlike other needs, however, neurotic needs do not promote health or growth if they are satisfied.
Maslow’s work is interesting but has shortcomings : concepts not well defined, neither easily testable nor susceptible to experimental verification, and more important, difficult to predict particular individuals, particular behaviours in particular situations : eg that are people who put satisfaction of higher needs more important at the expense of basic needs not satisfied.
Another thing is Maslow work focuses more on personality and motivation and behavioral patterns, probably any reference to happiness is oblique and ancillary in contrast to (say) the work of Edward De Bono (of Lateral Thinking fame) who did one piece of work/research squarely on the “Happiness†purpose and wrote a book on that.
#14 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 7:08 pm
Thanks, Jeffrey, for this piece of information. Do you think that, when one’s basic needs have been satisfied, the real need will be job satisfaction rather than more money, much more beyond basic needs?
#15 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 7:24 pm
Unequivocally Yes.
But one has to remember that I am not representative. My case was worse. When I was very young (23 or 24), when even basic material, monetary, physiological and safety/security) needs were not satisfied, I had my priorities mixed up, inverted the Maslow pyramid, and prioritized job satisfaction, way above monetary rewards. I won’t presume it works for everyone and certainly won’t recommend for general application.
#16 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 7:27 pm
But I suppose you would think that the real need is job satisfaction when basic needs have been satisfied, and that this is true of most people (if Maslow is correct on this point).
#17 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 8:14 pm
“But I suppose you would think that the real need is job satisfaction when basic needs have been satisfied, and that this is true of most people (if Maslow is correct on this point)”.
Yes I suppose for most people, it is and maybe ought to be so from the rational standpoint.
I took a different path but lets sharpen clarity of context.
“Basic needs” is relative. I would rephase : Then I wasn’t exactly without a roof and simple food on the table. (Was poor) But I had financial obligations which dictated that I should prioritize better paying job to meet these commitments. Instead at 2/24 I ventured into business for job satisfaction (even though there were great risks and I was hardly making enough to survive initially) though had I accepted other jobs offered to me, the salary was good and sufficient to meet basic needs of mine and those whom I had to take care.
#18 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 8:16 pm
Correction ’2/24′ should read 23/24.
#19 by Kingkong on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 10:08 pm
It looks like we have agreed most of the points. We all like job satisfaction or passion and monetary award in unison. But if there is no choice, it depends on individual’s need to prioritize whether money or job satisfaction whichever is needed to come first.
We quoted most of the time a particular case to disprove a general statement. That is correct because the validity of a general statement has to be proved rigorously.
As regards to happiness in relation to life objective, I would think in this way:-
There are many subsets of objectives in life or career. The happiness derived from the incremental improvement in many phases of life. In a way the happiness is enjoyed through the process of achieving the objectives and the excitement is in getting the end result, however this happiness will fade soon and hence you have to set a new set of objective for another series of incremental improvement and the process goes on and on. The total happiness or satisfaction at the end of the day is the total objective you have achieved in your life or career. By then hopefully, one has accumulated sufficient wealth or investment for one’s retirement and the children are independent enough to leave the nest for their own lives, and yet one still could enjoy good health and quality life.
“ When Kingkong says that there is no reason to feel ashamed because the Chinese are not commiting any crime in what he sees as their legitimate focus on the accumulation of wealth and what I see as a narrow-minded and self-centred focus, he assumes that only crimes should lead one to feel ashamed of oneself. But I think morally wrong or bad actions or attitudes, whether they are crimes or not, are sufficient to give one a reason to feel ashamed, unless we are happy to define our moral standards according to what’s defined as criminal or non-criminal in a country’s (which country?) laws.†Lee Wang Yen
Again is “a narrow-minded and self-centred focus†so morally wrong or bad actions or attitudes that you have to be so ashamed?
I thought those narrow-minded and self-centred people are usually happy people as they live in their own world and compliment one and other, they may be misfit to a larger group of the members of the society but they are harmless.
I think we should be more accommodating.
#20 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 11:48 pm
You point is that, when passion and job satisfaction cannot be had simultaneously, one should opt for the choice that will lead to the satisfaction of the need that he thinks he needs the most (be it job satisfaction or more monetary reward).
I think this point is questionable given Maslow’s psychological studies that show that, when one’s basic material needs have been satisfied (which is the assumption all three of us base our arguments on), human beings are constituted such a way that their real need is higher level satisfaction, the highest of which is self-actualisation (interpreted as job satisfaction in most contexts). I’ve already provided detailed explanation of this argument, including the crucial distinction between perceived and real needs, which has already cast serious doubt on your point. You’ll have to argue against Maslow in order to get your point through.
#21 by Lee Wang Yen on Sunday, 27 May 2007 - 11:52 pm
As I said, happiness is not confined to end result (i.e. the achievement of objectives), it has to do (and many people will argue, to a greater extent) with the process before you get to the end result.
#22 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 28 May 2007 - 12:06 am
The verfication/falsification and confirmation/disconfirmation of a general statement is not as simple as citing one counterexample, as you suggested. First of all, strict verfication and falsification apply only to analytic statements, which are what we deal with in mathematics. When you say that the citation of a counterexample should disprove a general statement (this is strictly speaking false, because general statement includes universal and statistical generalisations. You should have written ‘universal generalisation’, for a statistical generalisation cannot be falsified by a counterexample), what you have in mind is strict falsification, something we can only use in analytic statements (such as mathematical statements). But our discussions are on synthetic rather than analytic statements. When we are dealing with synthetic statements (e.g. emprical statements), strict verification and falsification do not apply. This has already been shown in the bankruptcy of logical positivism/empiricism. What we have are the notions of confirmation and disconfirmation, which correspond to (but is different from) verification and falsification. Philosophers of science have spent plenty of time to develop accounts of confirmation that could be applied to scientific statements in particular and empirical statements in general. One of these theories is Bayesian abduction. According to this theory, the disconfirmation of a hypothesis (making a general statement for example) is not the citing of a counterexample (that is falsification and cannot apply to synthetic/empirical statements), but has to take into considerations various criteria such as yielding the data, scope, simplicity, and fit with background theories.
#23 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 28 May 2007 - 12:08 am
An argument is valid/invalid. A statement is true/false. A statement cannot be valid/invalid
#24 by Kingkong on Monday, 28 May 2007 - 11:31 am
“A statement is true/false. A statement cannot be valid/invalid “Lee Wang Yen.
It is merely a choice a word. I can go along with your word true/false. No big deal.
Abraham Maslow may be a great American psychologist, but he is dead now. The interpretation of his work depends on how one looks at it from which angle of view one chooses. I assume we are not experts in this field, and our interpretation may not be that correct. A citation of his work does not necessarily mean that it is true.
Life is an analogue and not digital as either one or zero. There is a mixture of passion and monetary reward in work or business which one engages. Then one tries to seek a balance between the two whether it is more of this or less of that depending on one’s need. Abraham Maslow emphasized a lot on need, as what he said before one reached the state of self-actualization, one had to get the basic steps of physiological, safety, love/Belonging, Esteem right in that order. But that is his model if my interpretation is correct, however in actual life, it may be deviated as Jeffrey said his was an inverted pyramid and advised people not to follow.
The key is personal choice, and I wouldn’t say it is a “should “. If you think you are comfortable with it, go ahead and do it. After all one decides his own destiny. One does not need to check whether one’s action is conformed to the steps of Abraham Maslow before one does anything. Your own gut feeling is the key, and no one could decide for you.
As you realize in previous posting, most passion stuff appears in hobby but monetary reward appears in work on necessity. An angler may spend a lot of money, and time to fishing as a hobby, (he could get up in the morning at odd hours fishing in the middle of the Straits of Melaka, but couldn’t get up in time for work). Asked to be a full time fisherman is a no, no. Why? He can’t earn a living on that.
The luckiest person is the one who can combine passionate hobby with bread winning as I mentioned in my previous posting, the Yoga teacher with a few Yoga schools to run.
Again, this is my opinion and is not a “should “case.
#25 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 28 May 2007 - 1:50 pm
That a statement is true/false and that an argument is valid/invalid is not merely a choice of word that any language user can decide on his own how he wants to use it. Given that the words ‘statement’, ‘argument’, ‘valid’, and ‘true’ had already been used to mean what they meant by the English speakers before logicians analysed the kind of evaluation appropriate for a statement and an argument respectively, and given that the logicians could not ignore the previous meanings of these four terms and decide there and then arbitrarily to give completely different meanings to the four terms, the logicians who analysed the appropriate evaluation of argument and statement HAD TO conclude it only makes sense to say that a statement is true/false and that an argument is valid/invalid. It is true that language is conventional, but it does not mean that each and every language user is free to give any word any meaning she likes. A language user can coin new words, but has to use every word that has been used in the past in that language community according to the meanings that have already been given to these words. Otherwise, you would need to give a large number of words in that language different meanings and as a result speak a language that no one understands. This is because, as philosophy of language indicates, language is a systematic nexus of semantic and syntactic rules. A change in the semantic and syntactic rules of one word will result in the corresponding change of the semantic and syntactic rules of many other words related to it. If you change the meaning of the word ‘human’ by altering its semantic and syntactic rules, then some of the original syntactic rules that link ‘human’ to other words such as ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘Chinese’, ‘person’, ‘student’ etc will no longer apply and as a result the meanings of these other words will also be changed. GIven that these four terms had already been used before the logicians analysed them, the logicians had to analyse them according to the meanings already given to those words (or risked getting a conclusion that only applies to these few logicians but not to other English speakers) and had to conclude that it only makes sense to say that a statement is true/false and that an argument is valid/invalid.
A simpler response: when a physicist tells you that it only makes sense to say that ‘A is the velocity of B’ and ‘X is the speed of Y’ and not the other way round, you cannot reply by saying ‘whether velocity or speed (or mass or weight), it is my choice of words’.
If any language user can ‘choose’ the meaning of words by his own decision, then Bung-Said can say that they have chosen to use ‘bocor’ in a way that does not have the connotation other speakers of the Malay Language give to it, and thus have not committed the offence others say they have.
That a psychologist who has conducted careful empirical studies on a subject is dead is no good reason to dismiss his claims. Newton is dead. Eistein is dead. And so are many scientists and mathematicians. Of course, I’m not saying that Maslow is infallible or that he must be correct. Even scientists are not infallible. Even Eistein revised Newton’s theory. But this (the fact that scientists are not infallible) is not a good reason to reject current theories of science out of hand when you have no competing theories that enjoy better empirical support in place of the current ones. The same could be said of Maslow’s theory. To argue against him, you’ll have to conduct empirical studies that get a conclusion that contradicts his, and at the same time enjoy stronger empirical support. Alternatively, you should cite another psychologist whose work( which has equal if not more empirical support) contradicts Maslow’s conclusion.
Some hobbies cannot be careers in our current social setting. None of my previous comments implied that all hobbies can be careers. You must have inferred it from my statement that we’d better relegate our passions that we are not really good at to hobbies rather than pursue them as our careers. But I wonder how you inferred from this claim to the claim that all hobbies can be careers, which you then set up as a straw-man and attacked it by your story about the fisherman. That inference is simply invalid. If you didn’t make this inference then one wonders how the story of the fisherman is relevant to my earlier claim.
#26 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 28 May 2007 - 2:11 pm
Yes, ultimately everyone has to made her own choice. But that does not mean that every choice is rational. Making a choice without taking into considerations results of serious empirical studies (unless they have been shown otherwise) is a sign of irrationality. A builder is free to ignore the latest findings of engineering science and insists on his own gut feelings and choice. But he risks building something that may collapse. One is free to ignore the results of a careful psychological study and insists on his own gut feeling and choice, but doing so risks losing or failing to attain the well-being that could have been attained by taking those results into considerations.
Science and social science are not infallible. But experience tells us that they are reliable. This does not mean that every case of making a choice that ignores well-established theories will lead to troubles. But given the reliability of science and social science, one is more likely to live a better life by taking well-established scientific results seriously. Yes, psychology is still relatively less developed compared with hard sciences like physics and chemistry, but it is the best scientific channel we have in understanding human beings. In any case, it is more reliable than the pronouncement of Kingkong’s own gut feelings and what he asserts with certainty.
#27 by Kingkong on Saturday, 2 June 2007 - 1:14 pm
I came across this piece of interesting interview of P G Lim by China Press, a prominent lawyer, our first lady ambassador and UN representative. This interview appeared on 1st June 2007 on the China Press, page A21. Thinking that it might be helpful and relevant for young people who may be at the cross road of their career path, I translated it out for your reading pleasure.
P G Lim at the age of 92 is still a very graceful lady and enjoys her good health, between work on passion and work on necessity, she had this to say.
To be a musician who enjoyed the glittering lights, and thunderous applause from the audience, this was the passion that P G Lim had and she wanted badly to be a musician. However, when she grew up, she did not become a musician, but rather a prominent lawyer.
“In my era, it was very difficult for an Asian to be a successful musician; it was as difficult as trying to climb up to the sky. My father told me if I ever wanted to be a musician, the most I could achieve was to be a good music teacher.â€Â
P G Lim also has a master degree in Music and between music and law; she opted to be a lawyer for the sake of better prospect.
“ In those days, I was not very willing to do it, but my father was the bread winner, and I had no choice but to read law, but I have no regrets to become a lawyer; I could help people with my law qualification; and if I couldn’t find a job, at least I could work in my father’s law office. “
Time is the best witness, and the passion that P G Lim dropped off in pain proved to be worthy. Based on her intelligence, oratory skill, and broad knowledge of laws, she has become a prominent and respectable lawyer and had helped many people. She enjoyed a very successful career and good life.
The interview was carried out in her home and looking at the grand piano, the reporter asked: “Do you still play piano?†“I am now aged and my fingers are not so flexible, and I have reduced my playing time.†as she replied.
This is a classic example of practical approach to a real situation when circumstances do not give one a choice for work on passion. One can still, have a successful career, good life and live up to a ripe old age of something over 90 and still enjoy good health in spite of choosing work on necessity.
#28 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 3 June 2007 - 1:08 am
PG Lim is not necessarily a classic example to the rest of us of ‘practical approach to a real situation when circumstances do not give one a choice for work on passion’.
She belonged to a different era when it was truly difficult for an Asian to be a successful musician. Then again who knows? You may want to consider some caveats here:
Had she pursued her passion, she might have become a world renowned pianist;
if she did not become one, then again it might because her so called passion was not true passion. Enjoying the glittering lights, and thunderous applause from the audience does not reflect passion as much (as say) a talent or love of music and joy in sharing it with the world.
she had the talent – and analytical skills to become a great lawyer and most important, the pedigree. She comes from a family of Oxford/cambridge trained lawyers. Her brothers were famous lawyers : Lim Kean Chye of Ipoh and Lim Kean Siew of Penang. Whilst she said she had the passion for the piano, she did not say she did not have greater talent and as much passion developed later on as a lawyer. This is not a mere hypothetical argument. I should know. I knew her beyond mere acquaintance.