education-theory

well overall I think that the book was informative and it had some good tips about middle distance running. However some of the data e.g graphs were complcated and the reader had to draw their own conclusion from the data persented. It was very scientific and at times gave contradicting information which left the reader wondering 'well what should i really do.' Also the perspective was very male oriented and the articles did not include data or experiments with female athletes at all, ONLY PICTURES . I am a female middle distace runner so I was dissappointed with that.

Everybody should check this book out if they want to be the best distance runner ever.....

Period.

Patai and Koertage have studied the hate training program called "Women's Studies" from a sociological perspective. They go into detail on how a badly flawed political training program masquerading as "studies" is now being promoted and taught at virtually every college. Instead of education, young women get dogma. Instead of intellectual challenges, young feminists are taught to accept the party line without question. The authors include reviews of government agency promotion of the dis-education now accepted on college campuses. Where "knowing" replaces scholarship, where victimology replaces competency, where hate replaces wisdom, that is today's "Women's Studies" program. Title IX is mentioned in passing, but the question of an equal education required by law is not asked. With over 700 colleges in the US now funding misandrist propaganda classes called "Women's Studies" why aren't any of them required to also teach equivalent classes for men under Title IX? Even as bad as Women's Studies comes off in this book there is other, and perhaps equally valid and more damning criticism left out.

The book needs to be widely read by every college administrator and by every legislator who has to vote on college budgets. The authors mince a few words, probably to keep from being stoned, but the message is clearly stated. Prejudicial agenda conformity and hate on campus is not education. Buy the book. Give one to your college age student. Donate another one to your favorite library and college.

Koertge and Patai reveal the impact of "Women's Studies" programmes in North American universities. They examine the aims and practices in these study areas through interviews and analysis of curricula. The analysis is presented with a unique format - the authors couch their findings in the form of "games". Like all games, there are rules, playgrounds and players. The players are the teachers and students, but the spectators are the readers of this book. As taxpayers, the spectators often aren't aware of the game. This book can go far in enlightening the audience.

The underlying theme is the dominance of activism over scholarship. The authors note how activism by feminists in the 1960s and '70s led to the introduction of these special study areas. More attention given to the role of women in society led to courses in women writers, artists and politicians. Once in place in more university classrooms, Koertge and Patai show that the assault on "traditional" standards became even more widespread. The authors open the book describing the IDPOL game - "identity politics and ideological policiing". Teachers and students alike place high emphasis on acceptable roles and see that these are enforced. A major facet in establishing "identity" is the playing of TOTAL REJ - the eschewing of anything attributable to masculine origins. Examples are traditional philosophy, mathematics, science and technology. An extension of TOTAL REJ is BIODENIAL. The latter game introduces "social construction" to Womens' Studies by asserting anything related to gender is culturally based. This imported philosophical stance has been applied to wide areas in education, but impaired science and mathematics courses most severely according to the authors.

Fear of "backlash" reaction to the excesses of the programmes led the National Women's Studies Association to undertake a study. Koertge and Patai are at their most scathin[g in assessing the report produced by the NWSA. Virtually based on the book "Women's Ways of Knowing" that advocated a "connectionist approach" to learning. Self-expression, urged the NWSA, is more valuable than study, research and writing skills - "Empowerment over Epistemology". Epistemology is traditional, hence, masculine, hence unaceptable as a foundation for learning in the university. The authors offer a different solution. They urge the dimemberment of Women's Studies programmes by relocating the courses into the appropriate departments. Game-playing and "empowerment" would be shed for more meaningful scholarship.

Almost lost in this study is its most frightening statement: "feminist pedagogy . . . is being taken up by secondary and even elementary school educators and policy makers" [p. 44]. They define "academia" has a site for scholarship and debate while bewailing erosion of these values by feminist dogma in their conclusion. This dogma has emerged in the public school system [see C.H. Sommers' "The War Against Boys"] and shows little sign of abating. Anyone interested should glance at the list of university "Women's Studies" programmes readily available on the InterNet. The same courses, often taught by the same people, using the same curricula and reading material are still listed. This realisation will keep this book useful for some time. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada.]

In spite of my whimsical review title, I believe this is a very, very important book that every voter in the country should read. O'Neill is the first guy who's left the administration and is "old enough and rich enough" to tell the truth about how the current adminstration operates. I think most of us who voted for W last time did not expect him to be smart or hard working - after all, he had no history of success at anything other than being the son of President Bush 41. But, I do think we expected him to surround himself with wise counsel, listen carefully to their analysis and advice, lead his team to a consensus on the best path and then act. As this book makes crystal clear, Bush is just a dim, lazy leader who does what Karl Rove tells him to do.

Having spewed that venom, I will say that through much of this book I found myself irritated with O'Neill. It seems like he took the job of Treasury Secretary more to feed his own ego than any other reason. Yes, I believe he's interested in doing good, but could he really be so naive as to take this job so quickly without more due diligence on his role and how things would work? And after he clearly saw what a screwed up operation he was part of ("kids rolling around on the lawn" reference), why didn't he take a policy stand then when he had some real political capital to spend and make some hay with? My guess is that he wishes he had done both of those things, but since he didn't, writing this book was one thing he could still do. And, I got back on his side based on the way he handled his firing. I do believe he's a "truth teller" and the truth is that this administration is run by ideologues named Rove and Cheney who have a powerful toy named W who does what they tell him to and pronounces it to be leadership instead of puppetry.

O'Neill's book gets me to this point by explaining how ideas and analysis and debate are not part of this administration's operation. Cabinet secretaries have roles to play and lines to read, but they aren't supposed to nay say about anything the Mayberry Machiavellis have already told W to do. If they dissent, they aren't team players and they will be trashed in the press and eventually "resigned". With no analysis and little experience or smarts, is it any wonder W makes so many dumb mistakes? I think not.

If you want to learn some important things, read this book. If you prefer to lazily continue to think W's doing the job right, keep on snoozing. After all, he is.

The excellent work, 'Prince of Loyalty' should be read by everyone in America. What we independents hate is that Bush lied over and over and over about the Iraqi threat and The War. He also lied about his military record and even here in Austin it is well known his 'friends' cleaned up his military records while he was governor of Texas. This book should be titled 'The Prince of Liars', and not 'The Price Of Loyalty' !!!!
By reading this book, you can gain an inside view of what is happening inside the White House. You can see how this dysfunctional administration is controlled by the political arm headed by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, and how they viciously pursue their radical right agenda without much concern for the real world or hard facts.
If you care about the future of America, you should pick this up before the election, so that you can make an informed choice. God save us from the power broker politicians and their hidden agendas.
On a lighter note, if you are open minded and looking for those books begging for its pages to be turned...look no further. I just read a copy of Edgar Fouche's 'Alien Rapture,' which also blew me away. Fouche was a Top Secret Black Program 'insider', whose credibility has been verified over and over. Another fun book is Brad Steiger's 'Werewolf.' I also really liked Dan Brown's 'Deception Point,; and 'Angels and Demons.' Want to be shocked, check out Dr. Paul Hill's 'Unconventional Flying Objects' which N-NASA tried to ban, and always read the Amazon reviews.

Whose loyalty to whom and/or what? What is the "price"? How was it determined and by whom? The subtitle evokes another question: While obtaining his "education" during his 23 months as Secretary of the Treasury in the current Bush administration, what did Paul O'Neill learn? After research which involved 19,000 documents and hundreds of interviews, Suskind responds to these and other questions throughout the 349 pages which comprise his book. Of course, O'Neill is the focal point but much (most?) of the controversy about this book is a result of Suskind's portrayal of President Bush, in large measure based on O'Neill's comments about him. For example, O'Neill's most widely quoted observation that, during various meetings, President Bush was "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." Here's another: "I wondered from the first, if the President didn't know the questions to ask or if he did know and just not want to know the answers? Or did his strategy somehow involve never showing what he thought? But you can ask questions, gather information and not necessarily show your hand. It was strange."

To me, stranger yet is what the book suggests about Vice President Cheney, a close personal friend of O'Neill's for several decades who was primarily responsible for his appointment as Secretary of the Treasury. About two years later, Cheney informed him that the President "has decided to make some changes in the economic team. And you're part of the change." When Cheney then asked O'Neill to claim that it was his decision to leave public service, he refused. "I'm too old to be telling lies now." If the President Bush plays his cards close to the vest, the Vice President seems to keep his locked up in an undisclosed location. In decades to come, historians may well judge Richard Cheney to be his nation's most enigmatic as well as most influential Vice President. "We thought we knew Dick," O'Neill observes. "But did we?" Does anyone?

In this book, Suskind seems to take O'Neill at his word, that what O'Neill expressed to him is what he sincerely believes is true when commenting on various people and his relationships with them. Others are far better qualified than I to separate fact from opinion, to separate O'Neill's perceptions from the realities of his tenure. Obviously, O'Neill deeply resents what he views as mistreatment of him while Secretary of the Treasury; he also seems to lament even more his inability to influence the process by which issues were discussed and by which policies were formulated in the Bush administration. He characterizes cabinet-level debates as "incestuous amplification," driven more by self-serving expediencies than by principles.

Frankly, I do not know how much to believe of O'Neill's account even as I welcome it as another source of information, commentary, and evaluation of the current Bush administration as our nation proceeds into an uncertain, indeed perilous future.

KEY CONCEPTS:

* Important exploration of dialogue and the possibilities for liberatory practice.

* Freire provides a rationale for a pedagogy of the oppressed;

* introduces the highly influential notion of banking education;

* highlights the the contrasts between education forms that treat people as objects rather than subjects;

* explores education as cultural action.

In the early 1970's, Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire, visited Harvard and published an English translation of his best known work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. His general critique of education presented an analysis which challenged the neutrality of the technological model dominant in American schools. He argued that any curriculum which ignores racism, sexism, the exploitation of workers, and other forms of oppression at the same time supports the status quo. It inhibits the expansion of consciousness and blocks creative and liberating social action for change.

In Freire's view of education, learning to take control and achieving power are not individual objectives, as in a "boot strap" theory of empowerment. For poor and dispossessed people, strength is in numbers and social change is accomplished in unity. Power is shared, not the power of a few who improve themselves at the expense of others, but the power of the many who find strength and purpose in a common vision. Liberation achieved by individuals at the expense of others is an act of oppression. Personal freedom and the development of individuals can only occur in mutuality with others. In the experience of women's groups, civil rights workers, and many others committed to liberatory action, collective power and collegiality protect the individual far more than authoritarian and hierarchial modes of organization.

While Freire's theoretical framework gave many community-based educators grounds for hope, it was his pedagogy--the practical, how-to-do-it methods--which gave them sought-after tools for the reconstruction of urban adult education. Freire advocated dialogue and critical thought as a substitute for "banking" education in which the riches of knowledge were deposited in the empty vault of a learner's mind. He suggested several pedagogical techniques based on the mass literacy campaigns he organized in Brazil and Chile--campaigns integral to broadly defined programs of revolution and social change. It was these techniques which many literacy and basic education programs immediately incorporated into their practice: reflection on the political content of learner's day-to-day experience, the organization of "culture circles" which promote dialogue and peer interaction, and the use of "people's knowledge" as the basis for curriculum.

The most widely known educator in the world died on May 2, 1997. Paulo Freire leaves a legacy of dogged struggle for democracy, equality, and the social consciousness required to envision and retain a more just world. In his most widely read book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire detailed the role of education as a political force---for either liberation or domination. He argued that the process of liberatory education, reflecting the specific intersections of an educator, a student, and a community, must be a process of unveiling, questioning the central issues of life: work, culture and the construction of knowledge. He opposed his pedagogy to "banking " practices, rote memorization of the teacher's facts, which he insisted only reproduce injustice by aculturing the student to passivity. A critical education, in contrast, assists the students in methods to unravel her world--and the words which hide or expose its realities, While Freire was never able to resolve the shipwreck contradiciton of socialism, critical consciousness versus national economic development, his insistence on the need for new styles of education and leadership, coupled with his own lifetime of activism, leave an indominatable testimony of hope. Most educators want to change the world. Freire did

If you think there should be more social justice in our world and that the systems of our modern society may even prevent social justice Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed is for you. This Brazilian educator and philosopher wrote in 1970 of a world, our world, where 'Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality.'(Freire, 43) Freire would spend 70 some days in prison and live in exile for over 6 years for his writings and teachings particularly as they related to Brazilian peasants.
Freire wrote that we all live a dehumanized existence where a minority has conquered the majority via 'injustice, exploitation, oppression, and...Violence.'(Freire, 43) Freire doesn't apologize for having a Marxist prospective and shouldn't. If you don't believe all humans fit into just one of two classes the haves and the have-not's then this book is not for you. However it should be because, in his first 5 pages Freire illustrates this reality in a stunning clarity. For Freire seeking any but a more human future leads to despair and is there fore not an option.
Freire describes the objectification process 'In their unrestrained eagerness to possess, the oppressors develop the conviction that it is possible for them to transform everything into objects of their purchasing power.'(Freire, 58) Being so objectified steals everyone's humanity thus returning us to a cast like plebe status even those who do the objectifying are in the end dehumanized by their appetite. '...their situation has reduced them to things. In order to regain their humanity they must cease to be things and fight as men and women.' Only once their reality as objectified things is revealed can men and women begin their fight for liberation.
We fear freedom because of the story we have been feed since kindergarten. Freedom or liberation from our dehumanized existence requires among other things critical dialogue and reflection. '...reflection'-true reflection'-leads to action'when the situation calls for action, that action will constitute an authentic praxis only if its consequences become the object of critical reflection.'(Freire, 68) In order for the oppressed to recognize their reality, not the myths of the oppressors, serious deliberation must be entered into before the process of liberation can begin. Freire believes that we are subject to themes, false reality if you will, which have been imposed on the oppressed. The oppressed must re-define their reality to understand their true vocation, that of liberation. Critical to this deliberation is the process of dialogue.
'Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world.'(Freire, 88) Entered into dialogue together the oppressed can peruse their reality and will come to understand in a more complete way their actuality as people in pursuit of humanizing processes. '...faith in humankind' writes Freire 'faith in their power to make and remake, to create and re-create, faith in their vocation to be more fully human.'(Freire, 90) The job of the people is to remake our reality into a liberating and humanizing certainty, to escape our objectified existence. One cannot be in dialogue or think about our objectification without others entering that dialogue as well. One cannot think for another, just as another cannot think for the one, but all must enter into dialogue and reflection as a community together.
Freire describes the current education system as ''suffering from narration sickness.'(Freire, 71) that is a reality or narrative that is static and immobile, told as a positive or sure existence one which students should or must mold themselves to.
This 'Narration leads students to memorize mechanically the narrated content.'(Freire, 72) Freire calls this the banking system of education where '...knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing.'(Freire, 74) This is the deposit of knowledge not of thought. Freire continues, '...his ready-to-wear approach serves to obviate thinking.' (Freire, 78) Because this system of education forces the oppressed to adapt to the situation the oppressors can more easily dominate them. Students of the banking system are turned into '...receiving objects.'(Freire, 77) they are in this way further objectified and dehumanized.
Lesson are given not as a narrative or fact but rather in terms of a problem or question to be solved. The student and the teacher learn together from one another in dialogue and reflection. Instead of asking students to remember information and regurgitate it in a non-thinking robot like way students of the problem posing method would be given a challenge and would be asked to resolve it. The teacher and student become partners of investigation like a team of gumshoes solving a criminal riddle. 'The students'-no longer docile listeners'are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher.'(Freire, 81) By promoting critical thinking skills, dialogue and class wide reflection the march to liberation can begin. The process must be founded in co-reflection about the world, their place, and humanity; then as false themes are revealed real problems become apparent.
No apology is necessary for the liberal use of leftist ideology including communism, Marx's definition of class 'access to the means of production' in a keystone of this study. If you disagree with this definition then this reviewer would suggest you think about what it means to be 'middle' 'lower' or 'upper class'. And if your think you enjoy true freedom then you must ask yourself why you had to go to work yesterday and the day before. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a ray of hope and light in a world full of dehumanizing weapons polices and institutions it is a must read for all who seek freedom and a humanizing future.
Problem posing education used properly can at least, promote thoughtful reflection and dialogue as a community, if not something grander like liberation. Re-democratization of our communities must start with an education that allows people to recognize their dehumanized existence and that reveals the false narratives of our world. Via reflection and dialogue Freire's problem posing pedagogy gives us hope for a liberating future as equals.

This book... where to even start. I think it would be very easy to accept what this book says if you had never really studied American history from a non-white perspective.
He never explores the creation of a white America. He does not acknowledge the violence of assimilation. He almost completely disregards non-European immigrations. He never questions the myths of white America.
Reading this book, I was convinced that he was a conservative.

I read this book twice just it mine out every once of gold it contained. The author debunks much of the hyper-multicultural political correctness that plagued our universities for much of the early 1990's (It has since subsided since its initial outbreak, but remains a constant problem), but makes his point without sounding reactionary or afraid of change. Instead, he assiduously disseminates the separtist anti-American sentiments of radical multiculturalism while reminding americans of the value of a cultural pluralistic society that honors the traditions and cultures of our ancestors while not forgetting the common bonds of Americanism that unite us all. To that point, he reminds the reader what Americanism truley is; it is not a homogenenous white monoculture that looks and acts like a bad 1950's sitcom. Rather, Americanism is expressed in the democratic values that have allowed all groups to participate in civic life.

His book is a seminal work, important for all, especially whites, such as myself, whose culture has defined the dominant culture in America for 200 years. Change and inclusion are good things. The road to a united America falls on both the natives to accept newcomers and the newcomers to accept the democratic American principles and not form antagonistic enclaves separate from the whole.

This is one of the best and most important books ever written. This is the only book I ever read that I actually agreed with 100% This book made me talk out loud and cheer. The Disuniting of America looks at the consquences of teaching false and sometimes incorrect multiculturalism. I agree, when did our country no longer become a melting pot? American History is something we all share in common, something that should be used to unite us not divide us. The author also makes a great case against the teaching of often made up feel good multicultural history. Having taught the old New York state global studies curriculum I know first hand that African-American Students are no more interested in African history than they are of Asian history and so on. This book should be mandatory reading for all social studies teachers.

Ms. hooks stated goal of writing an accessible feminist primer for those outside the movement has partially been achieved. The book covers a great deal of territory for such a small volume; and it does so with (largely) accessible language (although I am not sure that continued use of such words as "dialectic" or phrases like "white capitalist male patriarchal heterosexist hegemony" are really all that accessible to outsiders to the movement). Many chapters are quite excellent and contain a thoughtful and succinct analysis of where feminism has been, is now, and needs to go.

There are some flaws within the work, however:

1. The focus on radical feminism as the "true feminism" and the "one path to salvation" may be tiresome for those feminists who are not in agreement with those beliefs or goals. 2. The continual dismissal of "reformist feminists" as "allies of patriarchy" could be considered insulting. 3. As a Canadian, the American paternalism wore a little thin, especially since, 4. She makes the common mistake of saying that feminism must end in creating an absolutely egalitarian society along sex, gender, class and race lines--and that anything that aims only to repair inequities between men and women is not "real" feminism (and then falls into the trap of American paternalism, which could be considered rather hypocritical). For instance, in the chapter on "global feminism," feminism all around the world is reduced to two forms: American and Third-World. I can only suppose that she believes that other Western countries can't really be distinguished from America.

In "Feminism is for EVERYBODY", Hooks skims over her ideas, current topics and past writings. I think this is a fine book for someone who is ignorant to feminism or a an individual who is interested in Hooks.

The introduction was my favorite part. How she states that as soon as she mentions the word "feminist" without fail, people get shifty and uncomfortable and talk about how crazy feminists are, how manhating, butch like, etc. Then go on to say she must not be like those "wierd feminists". When in reality, most people have no idea what feminism is, which is why she wrote this.

The only reason why I would not recommend this book to anyone is my own personal bias and opinions. I do not agree with everything she has written. However, her writing is easy to read and she writes in a way to entice everyone. She is kind and open, not aggressive and rude, but still assertive and gets her point across. She is also wise to not attack men, instead she attacks the patriarch, because that is a way of believing, it is not a sexuality, and that is what needs to be brought down.

Like I stated, it's compelling and easy to read, it's short and almost anyone can relate to it.

This is the best "primer" to feminism that I've ever read. It's a great read for people who know nothing about feminism or who are only familiar with mainstream society's myths about feminism, because it offers a concise and easy to understand history of the movement. hooks also clears up misunderstanding on the definitions of the terms feminist and feminism. She touches on problems within the movement and where we're at now. I also think this is an excellent book for seasoned feminists to have on hand. For one thing, you can find the quotes and passages you're looking for with ease...and it also helps to have read a book that you should be suggesting to those new to feminism.

Finally, I disagree with the reviewer who said this book is only for the "fringe" because hooks points out "our feminist pioneers [were] privileged, educated white women." Um...THEY WERE for the most part. If you're looking for a whitewashed version of the history of feminism then this book isn't for you. Like the feminist movement itself, this book cannot address sex and gender without also addressing race and class. Also, nowhere in the book does hooks imply that housewives are excluded from feminism. The book actually touches on the fact that most of the work done by women (including especially unpaid domestic labor) is still unpaid and undervalued in this society.

The amazing thing about this book is that hooks is able to compress so much information into such an easy and interesting read. You won't put it down except maybe to get your hi-liter.

Perhaps every good book has some axe to grind. In any case, knowing why it was written often helps more than anything else to understand what a book is about. In this case, the book is supposed to help deflate books like "The Bell Curve," and Arthur Jensen's seminal "The g Factor," which together argue that intelligence exists, is sociologically fateful, and highly heritable (i.e., that if everybody had the same genes for it, most of the variation presently observed in intelligence would not exist).

This is related to "Herrnstein's syllogism" which says: intelligence significantly determines social status, and is also highly heritable, therefore, under equal opportunity in a free and fair meritocracy, social status will still be significantly heritable. This, of course, is considered politically unacceptible by many if not most Americans today (although Thomas Jefferson apparently accepted it, cf. his "natural aristocracy"), and so Gardner has been warmly received as a foe of it.

Gardner's tactic is simple: he denies that intelligence exists, or at least that IQ tests measure intelligence. Instead he postulates "multiple intelligences," such as "kinesthetic intelligence" (physical/athletic coordination/skill), and "social intelligence" (social grace/ability). Musical talent too gets a re-name, but I forget what it is.

So as you can see, all this, while certainly interesting (since all these various talents are certainly interesting to explore and very valuable) basically amounts to what an ordinary person with common sense usually calls a "purely semantic argument."

In other words, Gardner does not show that there is anything wrong with Herrnstein's heresy besides a choice of words. Remove the term "intelligence," and plug in the term "IQ test score," and the same politically heretical conclusion follows, thus: IQ test score significantly predicts social status, IQ test score is highly heritable, therefore in a free and fair meritocracy social status will be significantly heritable. Gardner has done nothing to forestall the dreaded heresy. He has, however, allowed people to believe that he does, and thus enjoyed an unearned boost from the forces of political correctness, as other reviews will show.

How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Neither can calling athletic ability, musical talent, and social grace "multiple intelligences" do anything to change the biological heritability (or lack thereof) of socioeconomic status.

The meaning of a word depends on how people actually use it. If most ordinary English speakers call athletic ability, musical talent, and social grace "talents" rather than "intelligences," then that's what they are. Conversely, if IQ tests do measure what most people do call "intelligence," then IQ tests measure intelligence. To the extent that these things are true, they're just true by definition.

When it comes to the facts behind the words, Gardner's "intelligences" may themselves be just as heritable, if not more so, than traditional IQ test scores, and thus may even add to the expected biological heritability of social class. Gardner's work on the nature of various talents may be interesting, but his reputation as an ally of political correctness is a sham. The only thing politically correct about the MI theory is its capricious abuse of language in the service of an Orwellian attempt to alter reality by changing what things are called.

(As if to confirm, by reductio ad absurdum, the political motivation behind Gardnerism, I noticed posted on the wall of my kids' nursery school the other day, a new addition to the quiver of Gardnerian "intelligences." This latest one is called "environmental intelligence," or something like that, and is supposed to be----what else?----the ability to appreciate the natural environment. Obviously this sort of thing can go on to infinity, with each passing political whim giving birth to new Gardnerian "intelligence." No doubt we shall soon discover "democratic intelligence," which is the measurable variation in the natural ability of different children to appreciate the truth of the social-democratic worldview.)

However, if you're just looking for a good book on these various human talents, go for it.

Gardner's book is very well written. Although I am a layman in the psychological field, it was easy for me to understand the book. The empirical method Gardner used, is good in this respect. Intelligence is far more complicated than IQ-rating suggests. Gardner puts some very relevant question marks to IQ-testing. In my opinion IQ-rating is a cultural phenomenon. It measures aspects of intelligence that are most relevant in our Western world: logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligence. Culture is changing and more attention is given to other intelligence, e.g. interpersonal intelligence. Recently we bought for our children the software game LEGO Island. I was surprised to read that in this game the results of the Harvard Project Zero on multiple intelligence were used. Every character in this game is outstanding in one of the seven intelligences Gardners describes in his book.

intelligent people would agree with me when i say that a unique approach to an otherwise tired theory is more than welcome. on the other hand, some readers from glenville, NY can suck it. If you are a close-minded mechanical conservative tight-@ss who cant appreciate a new idea, nor accept that creative minds might be just as much a contributing member of society as your self-righteous politican or tight-wad teacher, then this book might not be for you. stick to something more classic, like The Bible, or The Prince, by Machiavelli.

A great book for proposing social engineering in education but otherwise nothing new except mis-application of the scientific method to non-science areas. His concept of education is socialization. If there is something great is his theories it is well hidden and not supported by scientific or non scientific studies..

This book is one of the great milestones of American history and philosophy and particularly education. It's as relevant today as the day it was written a century ago.

A must for any serious student of education and philosophy

After encountering ReMine on the internet on several occasions, I decided to read this book of his that he and lay creationists laud as the best thing written on the subject. After reading some of the reviews here, I must say that at first I thought I had read a different book. From an author who "knows what he is talking about"? He "pulls no punches yet he is not rude"?
First off, ReMine is not "Dr.ReMine". He has a master's degree in engineering.
Second, if you want to consider the fact that he accuses evolutionary biologists of colluding to hide the 'truth about Haldane's dilemma' for more than 40 years, and repeatedly referring to evolutionist 'storytelling', is not being 'rude', so be it.

The substance of this volume is not in his use of quotes - which his 'customer service rep' told me via email is how some of the "best science" is done - but in his lack of them.

He uses quote after quote - sometimes incorrectly, as in his quote of Van Valen on p. 219 - to support non-controversial subjects. For example, he uses 14 citations to support his statement that under Haldane's model, one gene per 300 generations can be substituted (p. 216). This is not in dispute. But how many citations does ReMine supply for this:

"Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?"

Ignore for now the clumsy prose, and look at what he is asking/saying. He is implying that 1,667 changes - in a genome of ~30-40,000 genes - is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor. Never mind that he does not identify the ancestor, so he has no way of knowing what changes have to be accounted for. But he is saying that more - many more (he mentions "500,000 selectively significant nucleotides" on p. 209, implying that even this is far too few; odd considering the size of the genic portion of the genome) are 'necessary'. THAT deserves some support - science by quote, if you will. And if you have or have read the book, tell us how many quotes ReMine provides to support this implication.

None. Not one.

This antic is repeated throughout the book - citations galore supportive of non-controversial facts, no citations at all supportive of his 'Biotic Message' fluff.

ReMine says over and over that this or that in fact supports his 'theory'. He says over and over that his 'theory' is "robust", "testable", and "scientific." Readers and accolade-heapers should ask themselves - If this is true, why did not ReMine provide a single test? Why did not ReMine provide some real-life examples of the application of his 'theory'? What he did was lay out - usually in a demeaning way - some aspect of evolution and claim that it actually - magically - supports his 'theory', not evolution!

And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine's amazing 'theory' can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as "John Woodmorappe", not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.

Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message" is a pretentious, arrogant and overbearing piece of fluff that presumes to know the answers while asking the wrong questions. As he proceeds into his criticisms of evolution, he presumes to tell us that it's both the creationists and the evolutionists who have gotten it wrong. Only he - Remine - seems to have found the answer, and he did so because he knows the sort of sleight-of-hand that is used by stage magicians. These stage magicians use their sleight-of-hand to project an illusion, and so does ReMine's "theory." That his sophistic presdigitation fools some is evident from some of the other reviews here, but no one with an ounce of scientific acumen will be fooled. ReMine's case is based almost totally on his own bizarre "observations" based on the idea that life points to a creator (which is just the old design argument revisited) and misused and misquoted material from conventional science sources, which adds to the illusion. This is a self-published volume, and it's obvious why. No self-respecting publisher would touch this one. Neither should any self-respecting reader who has any regard for science, philosophy or comparative religion.

This book deserves every one of it's five stars. This is by far the most comprehensive and best presented introduction to evolutionary theory that I have ever read. Yes, even those who support evolutionary theory would benefit from this volume.

This book is also far and away the best critique of evolutionary theory that I have ever read, and I have been reading on the topic for years now.

I will not go into specifics, but I will tell you that if you are interested in this subject at all, you need to get this book. Beware! The book is *not* for beginners. This book is by an author who knows what he is talking about and who gets into the details, but it is still well written and easy enough to follow for those with some background in the theory.

I'll close by stating that I have experienced many of the tactics which the author exposes in my own discussions with evolutionists. He is right on target, and I can't wait for the next volume by this author.

Thank you, Walter James ReMine!

This Student Manual accompanies the Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy text and covers: Practice, Ethics, Psychoanalytic, Adlerian, Existential, Person-Centered, Gestalt, Reality, Behavior, Cognitive-Behavior, and Family Systems Therapy.

The Student Manual has some of the hands on tests, assessment forms, ethics codes etc. that I wish had been put in the text. Also, the text is so dense and meaty that the questions and definitions in the text are almost essential if you are being tested on this material. The chapters follow along with the book. Each chapter starts with a pretest in which you discover your agreement with the concepts presented (e.g. if you answer yes to all the TF questions in the Behavioral chapter, then this theory fits your style well.) Some of these pretests are inventory surveys that you are supposed to use as a basis of discussion -- I find this stuff highly subjective and useless - but then again I am an engineer and like to know how to actually DO things.

In each of the chapters you get:

1) Initial attitude questionaire that also acts as a list of underlying assumptions for the school of therapy being discussed

2) 3 or 4 page review of the chapter

3) definitions of important terms

4) Questions, Cases, Activities for use in class that would be fine if the prof were there guiding a discussion but are without feedback for the solitary reader.

5) A quiz on the chapter with answer key in back of book.

Chapters with more supplemental material in addition to 1-5 listed above:

Chapter 2: Useless surveys re your attitudes. A "Quick Discrimination Index" which is designed to "assess sensitivity ...to cultural diversity and gender equity" which should have been entitled "Find out how politically correct you are". Apparently, I am discriminatory because I think it is more inportant for moms to be with babies in the first year (when men can breastfeed, I'll change my answer!) This stuff was all fairly worthless.

Chapter 3: Good stuff: sample therapist-client contract, ACA Code of Ethis, APA Code of Conduct.

Chap 5: Blank Lifestyle Assessment Questionaire (for use with clients) with filled out form for "Stan".

Chap 6: Existential Activities

Chap 7: Practice sheet for reflecting feelings

Chap 8: Gestalt exercises

Chap 9: Reprint of the Cycle of managing, supervising, counseling and coaching using reality therapy

Chap 10: Sample worksheet on translating broad goals into specific goals, worksheet on how to be concrete, relaxation exercise

Chap 11: Questionaire for discovering underlying issues ("shoulds" "oughts") REBT Self-Help Form

Chap 12: One of Sitir's exercises to see where you are transfering people from your past onto people in your present. Questions useful for eliciting info on Family Systems from client.

Chapters are:

-Counselor characteristics and practice: This was useful for me since I haven't yet practiced

- Ethics: Unfortunately, you have to get the student manual to see the ethical standards of the various prof. organizations.

- Psychoanalitic

- Adlerian

- Existential

- Person-centered

- Gestalt

- Reality

- Behavior

- Cognitive-Behavior

- Family Systems

- Last section ties it all together

Each chapter on an approach starts with a bio on its main proponent, hits key concepts, describes the theraputic process, techniques and who it applies to. A token section of its application to multiculturalism (the author obviously doesn't live in Hawaii where the White European culture is a minority! [grin]) The author then critiques the method for its positive and negative points and tells how he incorporates it. I found this last very useful. There are from 3 to 6 books suggested for furthur in depth study (very useful!) and an extensive bibliography at the end of each chapter (for you grad students like me who have to write papers!)

Advantages - Very interesting. Lots of information. I like the personal comments on real life usefulness. I would have like more exact techniques (what to do, questionaires referenced, tests etc) but some of these are found in the student manual.

Disadvantages - DENSE! This is not an easy read. I notice that most psych articles and books use such complicated language - some of it is precise jargon but some of it isn't necessary. Also, it doesn't treat Transactional Analysis.

Student Manual - You probably should get this (see my review of it)

Overall: very useful. I'm glad it was required for my class. It is a keeper.

Very fast delivery!! I ordered this Monday evening and it arrived Thursday! The condition of the book was better than expected. I would definitely order from here again.