At last a website that understands the way that I think. Superlinguo has a post suggesting alternative names for everyday things [^]; bread is raw toast, and kittens are cat puppies. That all makes way more sense, and confuses people a little bit.
In other words, if a we have a reasonable sense that something is achievable (expectancy), the pay-off is going to be high (value), the activity was planned (not impulsive) and the timeframe is short (low delay) then motivation should be high. As soon as any of these factors start to move then the motivation and chance of procrastination will also change. Any one of these factors can have a big impact on the way that someone reacts to the task.
It is always worth remembering The Golden Rule [^] – “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. Today I had a bit of a jolt as I was reminded that Charity can be scooped-up in the same concept. Charity isn’t just about financial giving, but a realisation that another needs help. The Philosophers’ Mail went a little further in the little further about charity in relationships:
Charity remembers how there might still be goodness amidst a lot of evil. Charity keeps in mind that if someone is tired and stressed, they are liable to behave appallingly … Charity is interested in mitigating circumstances…
…in life as a whole, and especially in relationships, charity is unlikely ever to end up being one-sided: who is weak and who is powerful changes rapidly and frequently. You are likely to be, as it were, a patron in one area and a beggar in another. So we must be kind not only because we are touched by the suffering of others but because we properly understand that we too will soon be in urgent need of an equally vital dose of charity in some other part of life.
The Philosophers’ Mail – Why you need to learn a little charity[^].
Charity is about giving and receiving, and understanding.
In "Do You Really Know What Your Kids Do Online and In Games" Pete Brown tells of the real world consequences of online activities.
Two boys had complete freedom in their online activities and gaming; something we have all heard about on early evening "current affairs" type programs. But, unlike their normal response, Pete doesn’t decry the harshness of the penalty, and tell us how unjust the treatment of the boys is. The post is packed full of useful security and privacy tips, and decides that all the rules that used to be applied to "real" life (don’t get into cars with strangers, don’t tell everyone you are going on holiday) apply to online life as well. Though my favourite is:
Each and every piece of information you post on line, no matter how small, should be evaluated:
- Could this information cause harm to anyone else if it got out?
- If the wrong people saw this, could it cause me harm?
- Am I sharing information that is private to someone else?
- Is it my secret to share?
Good work Pete, thanks for the big dose of common sense!