Both in science and education, people can be confronted with situations where they can do something, but decide not to do it? What is your opinion? Do you know examples?
Yes, this is so true. Often, we do come across such situations when we are aware of our capability to do something, but do not have the requisite initiative in starting or completing the task concerned. This may happen due to sheer inertia, but may be due to our lack of interest in doing that act/task. It may also happen due to the distraction of our attention from that task for any reason. For example, I was invited to write a paper for a very very prestigious journal. I collected the data, but could not complete the first draft in time. The topic was not of great interest to me, which diluted my interest in carrying on doing it. I knew that they would not excuse me for the delay as I was too late. Somehow, that first draft is still lying uncompleted even after many years; I never took it up for completion again. Sheer inertia!
Yes, this is so true. Often, we do come across such situations when we are aware of our capability to do something, but do not have the requisite initiative in starting or completing the task concerned. This may happen due to sheer inertia, but may be due to our lack of interest in doing that act/task. It may also happen due to the distraction of our attention from that task for any reason. For example, I was invited to write a paper for a very very prestigious journal. I collected the data, but could not complete the first draft in time. The topic was not of great interest to me, which diluted my interest in carrying on doing it. I knew that they would not excuse me for the delay as I was too late. Somehow, that first draft is still lying uncompleted even after many years; I never took it up for completion again. Sheer inertia!
To be or not to be!
1. Does it affect me directly? Then I will do it is the attitude of human being.
2. If it is affecting third party, I can afford to be wary of action.
3.In Education, many times compromised decisions are taken to solve the immediate problem. Long term visionary decisions are postponed or shelved.
4.This is true even at microscopic level. As teachers and researchers, we choose the easier path on many occasions. Probably, it is individual's nature!
Real reason is attitude!
Yes, dear Marcel. It rarely happen that you can do it, but decide not to do it: For me, I can work better under pressure. I do well when I conduct researches. Once in 2009, I thought of getting a rest for weeks.
It took me one year without doing a research although I could do it. In the next year I went back to the grind stone and started working on researches.
Dear Marcel,
I could exploit students but I do not do it because I am too proud and ethically “vulnerable” as to have students make experiments and research work instead of me.
Dear Marcel,
Philosophically considered, this is a complex-in-demands question!
From a philosophical and psychological standpoint, however, I tend to believe that what you argue for is correct. But, in the final analysis, it all depends on "it," as an intellectual feature of the common change of strategies!
Dear Marcel,
I could allow myself to deliver weak and unprepared lectures but I do not do it because it would be a shame.
Dear Marcel,
I can give a pass for unsuitable examination performance of students but do not do it because this would be unethical and unjust.
Dear Marcel,
I quote from T. S. Eliot's opening of the "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"
LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats 5
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question…. 10
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
Like András Bozsik, I could "I could exploit" Master students but I do not do it because it's too annoying to correct their mistakes as a result of their idleness.
Concerning research, if a confirmed researcher could do the job, but let it do by students, what would be the long-term consequences for research quality? Would research become not more than an education tool?
Yes it happens but not very often otherwise it will draw me back. I had an experience of such a research that I collected the data and still in the computer waiting for analysis and writing it up. Sometimes you get things in front of you as an urgent and prompt request to be accomplished, so you don't have space to do your own business.
Dear Marcel,
Often it would be very comfortable to be a practical hypocrite and I could do it. However, I do not do it because I would hate myself.
Procrastination, avoidance, or laziness. These are three reasons for not doing something that you can do, but choose not to do it. Procrastination is passive aggressive behavior. We often do not recognize the target of aggression. Avoidance is the product of not facing potential or actual conflict. Here we know potential conflict and neither have the strength nor interest to engage others. Laziness sidesteps any responsibility hoping others will do it or knowing that lack of ambition may preclude advancement, but why try when your current situation is good enough.
There is, additionally, the problem that there is not enough time. Current work will suffer if this new task is included. Time issues are important to a responsible person and some things must be given a priority.
I have been guilty of procrastination and avoidance. I am ashamed to say that I have procrastinated because I felt I did not receive proper recognition and because I resent authority. More important is being guilty of avoiding conflict. I avoid conflict whenever possible. Often I have not completed what I knew should be done because it would contradict either someone important or an aggressive colleague. This may be a surprise to many who know me because I am known for being aggressive and outspoken.
Many times I have been confronted with this kind of situation. My decision in not doing what otherwise I could do is primarily based on my view of what is right and what is wrong, and the external pressure of doing or not doing things.
In my life I have sacrificed many things, higher administrative position, research grants, political allies, and even acquaintances because I did not do things (which I could do) because I believed I must not do them.
Personally, to write something, it should come to maturity, and suddenly I feel that I should seat down and write! I feel that I am an medial, and the writing is almost automatic. This process takes time. Sometimes never come to maturity and there is no writing.
Sometimes you want to do something and YOU CAN"T DO IT! This is characteristic situation of depression. You have to do something to go out of the vicious circle, and proceed. Find e.g. a very interesting problem and change subject for some time.
Kamal this is clear language but I always just jumped and took the consequences and still have to carry them, but I believe in the good work that has to be done. Although I'm not for confrontation directly. I learned also my lesson.
An other answer I had in mind was the fact that C. G. Jung was invited by Goebbels to Germany to meet Hitler. He went and shaked hands. He was able to write an analyse about the madness but he didn't so he went home as quickly as possible. I read this in the book 137. It is some information I stocked.
Deciding not to do even being capable of doing is possibly influenced by personality, preferences circumstances, consequences and sometimes self-consciousness and ethics. I think, at some point of time in life everyone would have confronted with this situations. "It does not take much strength to do things, but it requires great strength to decide on what to do" - Elbert Hubbard
Really, it's a provocative question. Why we always think about something GOOD we could do, but did not. The question might be about something bad, that we could do, but did not.
There's always a reason. Also for a "do not", a reason still exists. And the reason for the always existing reason is that you live, and work by contradictions: do I have to answer now? Or not? And if I start to wonder, am I to start? And the reason coincides with me or with the question? With the yes or with the not?
One friend of mine, a linguist, says that we're wrong to base our relations on statistics; on what is there and what is not; because there's always a reason — that is a perpetual positive ratio (a natural number, real and positive) — whose phenomenon we feel as a motief; leit|motif. Running, and always with a reason.
I don't know why the contradiction sometimes is inclined to yes or to the no. Sometimes, it is as the scruple of the executioner: one, two, cross.
—g
Dear Porfs and friends, like Andras, I could behave insincerely and be a hypocrite even on social media, but that would be contrary to all the principles that I have imbibed and to all the good teaching from my dad and my teachers. It would be betraying their trust. So I do not do such things at all times.
I could have emigrated to UK or Australia with my cousins, when I was a teenager but I stayed behind because of my old folks, to care for them in their old age because they made any sacrifices for all of us. When they passed away, I wondered if it was worth doing as I did. But I have a commitment to my community; I happen to be a lifelong learner who has been directly and indirectly influencing my students to be lifelong learners. Can they learn this from teachers who work for a salary; do no research, and spend work hours surfing for holiday destinations?
It's all about COST & BENEFIT that are CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. The same scenario in different situations will lead to different decisions.
Dear Prof Kamal et al, when we don't do the good we should do, it's often due to human weakness and personal weakness. Do you agree? (From mobile.)
If you do something good for person/population A is it good for person/population B? How do you know that what you will do will do good? Is it environment-dependent for which not all information is available at the time a decision is taken?
Dear Marcel, to answer the last post, I can share some examples and you can judge, ok? My students are weak students but it's near the semester exam. Our students reside in dorms. I had extra classes to discuss several biology topics. Their classes end at 5 pm, so we had an extra class till 6.30 pm. But my head told me to re schedule my extra classes from 8 - 9.30 pm. For my students and myself, we prefer the class to be from 5pm, so that they can do their own work at night. But because of the intervention of the head, I set the last extra class at 8 pm.
Now it's near exam, and students are stressed. I told them to drink lots of water on waking up and throughout the day, to reduce stress. I bought apples for them, because the cafetaria doesn't serve much fruits. This time my head didn't tell me off. So I just decide based on what I think is good, and on the info I have at that moment.
Dear Kamal,
I think that the mental state is important when you take a decision, which is not (always) visible to the others. For instance, you can think/be convinced that your decision will be 'good' for the person/population and you will have the person/population that makes an interpretation about your mental intentions at the time you took the decision, which may be perceived the opposite of what your initial intentions were, or not?
Does this happen frequently in politics?
Is the intuition/feeling about what is a 'good' or 'bad' decision innate/genetically-based/karma or acquired/learned/karma?
To some extent, based on their cultural and societal values humans are conditioned to respond to a circumstantial and behavioural stimulus. Inherent instinct, intellect and providence may sometimes influence the decision - what is 'good' or 'bad'. Often, we notice people saying that they have taken a decision or done something at their innersole voice. However, I can’t say whether there is any scientific explanation of all such influencing factors.
Let us consider this example:
'A' in a crucial authoritative position (may be among a few others) has to take a decision involving, let us say, 5 persons namely 'P, 'Q, 'X', 'Y', 'Z'.
A fair/unbiased decision is going to benefit, let us say, 3 of these persons namely, 'X', 'Y' AND 'Z'.
'A' has no issues with 'X' and 'Z' but does not want 'Y' (who can not be eliminated in case of a fair decision) to be benefited for some of his preconceived notions/personal grievances (which may be right or wrong).
'A', biased thus, applies all his skills/tactics/ resources/... to see to it that the decision is twisted not to benefit any of the deserving persons.
Such/or similar happenings are not very uncommon and I am sure that many of us must have come across such instances.
@Instance cited above:
'A' doesn't bother even to the possibility that the twisted decision may benefit any or both of the undeserving persons 'P' and 'Q'.
Dear Shanker/Dear All,
If science quality is sacrificed for personal ambitions, there is indeed an ethical problem.
One obvious example is to exclude competent people because of personal/private reasons
Dear Marcel,
I have observed a lot of actions made by various people. I am convinced most of them had no intentions but interests without innate/genetically-based/karma or acquired/learned/karma? Although, simple egoism can be regarded as genetically-based/karma.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science