My Photo


  • Simon Blackburn: An Unbeautiful Mind
    Polkinghorne holds the belief that unless some things last forever, everything is futile, a "meaningless empire of accident." This would wipe the smile off the face of many scientists. For science is not good about "forever." It paints a different picture of the world in which we find ourselves. Science teaches that the cosmos is some fifteen billion years old, almost unimaginably huge, and governed by natural laws that will compel its extinction in some billions more years, although long before that the Earth and the solar system will have been destroyed by the heat death of the sun. Human beings occupy an infinitesimally small fraction of space and time, on the edge of one galaxy among a hundred thousand million or so galaxies. We evolved only because of a number of cosmic accidents, including the extinction of the dinosaurs some sixty-five million years ago. Nature shows us no particular favors: we get parasites and diseases and we die, and we are not all that nice to each other. True, we are moderately clever, but our efforts to use our intelligence to make things better for ourselves quite often backfire, and they may do so spectacularly in the near future, from some combination of manmade military, environmental, or genetic disasters.
  • Roger Scruton: The West and the Rest
    "It is thanks to Western prosperity, Western legal systems, Western forms of banking, and Western communications that human initiatives now reach so easily across frontiers to affect the lives and aspirations of people all over the globe. However, Western civilization depends on an idea of citizenship that is not global at all, but rooted in territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty. By contrast, Islam, which has been until recently remote from the Western world and without the ability to project its message, is founded on an ideal of godliness which is entirely global in its significance, and which regards territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty as compromises with no intrinsic legitimacy of their own. Although there have been attempts to manufacture nationalisms both appropriate to the Islamic temperament and conducive to a legitimate political order, they have fragmented under the impact of sectarian or tribal allegiances, usually giving way to military dictatorship or one-man, one-family, or one-party tyranny. Islam itself remains, in the hearts of those who live under these tyrannies, a permanent call to a higher life, and a reminder that power and corruption will rule in this world until the reign established by the Prophet is restored."
  • Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations 1776
    The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they were perhaps very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age, or soon after, they come to be employed in very different occupations. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scarce any resemblance. But without the disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, every man must have procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of life which he wanted. All must have had the same duties to perform, and the same work to do, and there could have been no such difference of employment as could alone give occasion to any great difference of talents.
  • Kishore Mahbubani: Freedom
    But freedom does not only solve problems; it can also cause them. The United States has undertaken a massive social experiment, tearing down social institution after social institution that restrained the individual. The results have been disastrous. Since 1960 the U.S. population has increased 41 percent while violent crime has risen by 560 percent, single-mother births by 419 percent, divorce rates by 300 percent and the percentage of children living in single-parent homes by 300 percent. This is massive social decay. Many a society shudders at the prospects of this happening on its shores. But instead of traveling overseas with humility, Americans confidently preach the virtues of unfettered individual freedom, blithely ignoring the visible social consequences.
  • Harold Pinter: Nobel Lecture
    There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.
  • Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man
    As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.
  • Earnest Becker: The Denial of Death
    We have to go the way of the grasshopper even though it takes longer.
  • Johnson, Samuel: Rambler # 121 May 14, 1751
    "To learn is the proper business of youth; and whether we increase our knowledge by books or by conversation, we are equally indebted to foreign assistance."
  • Murray Rothbard: Education Free and Compulsory
    It is evident that the common enthusiasm for equality is, in the fundamental sense, anti-human. It tends to repress the flowering of individual personality and diversity, and civilization itself; it is a drive toward savage uniformity. Since abilities and interests are naturally diverse, a drive toward making people equal in all or most respects is necessarily a leveling downward. It is a drive against development of talent, genius, variety, and reasoning power. Since it negates the very principles of human life and human growth, the creed of equality and uniformity is a creed of death and destruction.
  • J. M. Cameron: Review of Becker's Denial of Death
    Life, for Becker, is a desperate business, in which a steady heroism before the terrors of existence is in general the only thing to be commended.
  • Mark Lilla: The Politics of God
    In the end, though, what happens on the opposite shore will not be up to us. We have little reason to expect societies in the grip of a powerful political theology to follow our unusual path, which was opened up by a unique crisis within Christian civilization. This does not mean that those societies necessarily lack the wherewithal to create a decent and workable political order; it does mean that they will have to find the theological resources within their own traditions to make it happen. "Our challenge is different. We have made a choice that is at once simpler and harder: we have chosen to limit our politics to protecting individuals from the worst harms they can inflict on one another, to securing fundamental liberties and providing for their basic welfare, while leaving their spiritual destinies in their own hands. We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible’s messianic promise than to try exploiting them for the public good. We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by divine revelation. All we have is our own lucidity, which we must train on a world where faith still inflames the minds of men. NYTimes Magaziine, 8/19/2007
  • Richard Fields: The Land of Opportunity
    Immigration to the United States is not a problem. It is a phenomenon. The only way the United States can stop this phenomenon is by destroying the capitalist economy that draws immigrants here. We need to move in the direction of more open immigration, not in the direction of militarized borders fit only for a police state. Though it's been obscured by layers of cynical campaign rhetoric, the issue of immigration comes down to whether we want to restrict individual liberty to native-born Americans or offer it to everyone. If freedom works for us — and it does — what possible moral reason do we have to offer it to those born in San Diego, and deny it to those born inches away in Tijuana?
  • Edward O. Wilson: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, 1998
    On the surface it would seem, and was so reported by the media, that the Rwandan catastrophe was ethnic rivalry run amok. That is true only in part. There was a deeper cause, rooted in environment and demography. Between 1950 and 1994 the population of Rwanda, favored by better health care and temporarily improved food supply, more than tripled, from 2.5 million to 8.5 million. In 1992 the country had the highest growth rate in the world, an average of 8 children per woman. Parturition began early, and generation times were short. But although total food production increased dramatically during this period, it was soon overbalanced by population growth. The average farm size dwindled as plots were divided from one generation to the next. Per capita grain production fell by half from 1960 to the early 1990s. Water was so overdrawn that hydrologists declared Rwanda one of the world's twenty-seven water-scarce countries. The teenage soldiers of the Hutu and Tutsi then set out to solve the population problem in the most direct possible way. Rwanda is a microcosm of the world. War and civil strife have many causes, most not related directly to environmental stress. But in general, overpopulation and the consequent dwindling of available resources are tinder that people pile up around themselves. The mounting anxiety and hardship are translated into enmity, and enmity into moral aggression. Scapegoats are identified, sometimes other political or ethic groups, sometimes neighboring tribes. The tinder continues to grow, awaiting the odd assassination, territorial incursion, atrocity, or other provocative incident to set it off. Rwanda is the most populated country in Africa. Burundi, its war torn neighbor, is second. Haiti and El Salvador, two of the chronically most troubled nations of the Western Hemisphere, are also among the most densely populated, exceeded only by five tiny island countries of the Caribbean. They are also arguable the most environmentally degraded.
  • Murray Rothbard: Rights of Animals
    There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings. And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.
  • Dr. Kenneth R. Miller:
    When asked, “What do you say as a scientist about the soul?” Dr. Miller's answer is always the same: “As a scientist, I have nothing to say about the soul. It’s not a scientific idea.” Dr. Mller, a Roman Catholic and biologist at Brown University is the author of, “Finding Darwin’s God” (Harper, 1999)
  • Richard Rorty:
    "...if we can work together, we can make ourselves into whatever we are clever and courageous enough to imagine ourselves becoming.”
  • Richard J. Herrnstein:
    "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it's a lot easier to lie without them."
  • Michael Slackman: Quiet Revolution in Algeria
    In Algiers there is a whole class of young men referred to as hittistes — the word is a combination of French and Arabic for people who hold up walls.
  • Albert Einstein:
    Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach age 18.
  • Neil Postman:
    "Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see."


  • Google


« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 2007

April 24, 2007

What our President Doesn't Know Hurts Him and Us

OK, our president is George Bush, and he’s not a good president. According to some, of whom many historians, he is our worst president ever. I often wonder how he can be still standing after six years of blunders.

Why, for example, haven’t the mortal blows that our country, our people, our service men and women, as well as other countries and other peoples, have received on a daily basis, why haven’t these blows toppled our president and thereby enabled our country to begin again to relate intelligently and positively to other countries and peoples? 

How is it possible that this man, a product of our very best families and schools, doesn’t see today, now into the fifth year of the war, the terrible price we are all made to pay for his mistaken policies and decisions?

Of all the many errors of judgment the man has made during his presidency the very worst one may very well be his apparent belief that countries and peoples can be fundamentally changed, made to order, by superior force. Then can't, of course.

This is a common mistake, although not often producing such disastrous outcomes as we are now experiencing in Iraq. Parents make the mistake with their children, teachers to a lesser extent with their students. Foreign invaders make this mistake with conquered populations. For people will be changed, if at all, not from without, but from within.

When most successful in their conquests the Romans used persuasion, not force. When they did use force it was so overwhelming that no resistance was possible.

There is no inbetween. By superior force alone one can no more control people’s movements, let alone their opinions, minds, and hearts, than one can keep expanding quantities of air or water within containers of fixed dimensions. The containers no matter what they are made of will burst under the increased pressure. And just as air or water, call it wind or tidal wave, will overwhelm everything within its path, so will peoples, determined to be free, overturn all obstacles in their way.

The greatest irony may very well lie in the fact that as Bush says he is bringing “freedom” to peoples who have never known freedom. In this instance the freedom he brings is most of all freedom to oppose him and his plans for the country.

In their new found freedom the Iraqis are not choosing to be like us, no more than children will ever freely choose to be like their parents. The Iraqis are clearly choosing to go their own way. Why doesn’t Bush get out of their way?

Again, why doesn’t Bush see the disastrous results of his mistaken policies? Bush would make people free, but the people only see in this as his attempt to have them under his control. The strongest force in the world is that of people freeing themselves from an unwanted yoke.

The Israelis and the Palestinians are another instance of the same thing. For Israel in regard to its treatment of its conquered peoples is no less mistaken than Bush in regard to Iraq.

Take, for example, the Gaza Strip. It looks well within the power of one of the world’s best armed forces to control. Why it’s less than the size of Philadelphia, and with fewer people.

How many Israeli soldiers would it take to control Philadelphia, say prevent the good citizens of Philadelphia from firing rockets and mortar shells across Delaware Bay into Camden, NJ?

Maybe none at all if the good citizens were not seeking their independence above all else. But if they were, if they were hell bent on being free, what number of soldiers could control some one and one half million people armed to the teeth? Israel continues to act as if to do so were within its power.

As the Romans did to Carthage, or the allies to Dresden during the second world war, one might “bomb” the city of Philadelphia into the Stone Age. But if you didn’t do this, and as long as you allowed some of the people to live, you would not be safe from their suicide or other attacks on your soldiers and other representatives.

Again, there is no inbetween. Why haven’t we learned that after Vietnam and now Iraq? Why hasn’t Israel learned that after more than a half century of conflict with the Palestinians?

Why doesn’t our president see that there is only one way that people change, say Sunnis and Shia giving up their ethnic hatred of one another, Al Qaeda abandoning its Jihad against the US, criminals walking away from criminal behavior, and that’s from within?

We need to reach other peoples who live on this earth and who do not share our beliefs but from within, if we would reach them at all, and not destroy them and us in the process. How do we do that? Perhaps first by putting away our guns.

We in Iraq, and the Israelis in Palestine, have only the choice between completely destroying the enemy (a choice that no one is now making) and talking with that same enemy.

The talk to succeed at all will have to lead to one side giving up positions of power, Israel, for example, giving up controlling rights to Gaza water supplies and air space, and the United States giving up its present military occupation of Iraq.

But that’s not enough. The other side, the Palestinians and the Iraqis, will have to begin turning more and more of their energies to bettering the lives of their peoples and thereby giving less of their energies to Jihad against Israel and the West.

Why doesn’t our president know that this is what has to happen, and that it’s not within his power to make it happen? Withdrawing is really all he can do. Taking away thereby the easy target he now presents to his enemies. Forcing them thus to look more at themselves, and less at him.

April 17, 2007

On Robert Epstein’s “Let’s Abolish High School.” Part Two

In his EDWeek article, “Lets Abolish High School,” Robert Epstein lists four “fatal legacies” from the past.
They are:

1)    The school system by and large does not take into account the child’s readiness to learn. Whereas every piece of steel is “ready” to become a fender not every child is ready to read.
2)    The mass productive techniques of the factory have given us mass education. Whereas effective learning—learning that benefits all students—is necessarily individualized and self-paced.
3)    The schools would cram learning into the first two decades of a child’s life. Whereas we know that real learning, or education, is a life-long process.
4)     Schooling is compulsory in most states up until age 16. Two more years, up until age 18, is usually enough to obtain a high school diploma. But how much time one spends in school or other learning situation ought to be directly proportional to the time needed to acquire the desired skills and knowledge. It’s not of course. There is in fact little direct relationship between the time spent in school and the competencies acquired thereby. Witness the highschool senior who has studied French or Spanish for four years.

I have just a couple of things to say about all this.

First, as Epstein points out, effective learning has to be individualized and self-paced. Furthermore, the teachers, as well as the students as they get older, know this. But they do nothing. Epstein says that unacknowledged awareness is the “elephant in the classroom.” A big object that you pretend is not there.

Epstein might very well have said that the other three “fatal legacies” are no less “elephants,” or “bodies” that occupy most of the learning space, but are never directly confronted by the teacher and students, leaving thereby little or no space for real learning to take place.

When one looks at our educational system, oblivious to these “legacies,” it does seem incredible, doesn’t it, that our schools go about their business as if the readiness, or the motivation and interest of the learner were not all important, as if learning could be anything but “individualized and self-paced,” as if one’s learning were limited to one’s time in school, and as if time in school (“she has perfect attendance,") rather than acquisition of competencies were the best measure of school success.

Second, what ever happened to competency based learning? Epstein tells us that a 1852 Massachusetts law required that all young people between the ages of 8 and 14 attend school three months a year—unless they could demonstrate that they already knew the material; in other words, the law was competency-based.

Boy, have we come a long way from that! Why so? Growth in student competencies are what all reforms would bring about. The failure of all reforms to do this is perhaps their failure to recognize increased competency as the true goal of their efforts, substituting for the acquisition of competency such things as school choice, a longer school day, national standards, better teacher training, etc. as the principal ends of school reform. They're not.

What typically does the teacher now do when she sees that her 25 different students are approaching the day’s lesson from 25 different perspectives? There will be those who already understand, have even mastered the lesson materials. There will be those who will probably need additional class of other help just to grasp the rudiments. And there will be all the others at different points in between.

The teacher will avoid this classroom elephant, that is, the widely differing degrees of readiness of her students, and speak instead to the level of understanding of this or that student, and of course during the process more or less losing the others.

Under a competency based system this wouldn’t have to happen. Schools could be structured around their students acquiring competencies, in school, out of school, at home, or elsewhere, not as now based on their students being present in class for some five or more periods a day, during a six hour day and a five day week. 

In a more reasonable and more realistic school structure, one that recognized kids as they are, the “elephants” would have to be acknowledged, one after the other and all together, with the result that schools as we know them would probably disappear.

Perhaps this is what keeps any real reform from ever taking place. It would be too big a change in the status quo, thus raising the resistance of the present holders of power. Also, there is probably too much that is not known about what would happen if we publicly acknowledged the elephants. There would be the inevitable unexpected consequences, and this makes us afraid.

Why if kids were ready to learn, if their education were individualized and self-paced, if their learning were not confined to the school building and to the first years of their lives, and finally if they actually became competent in this or that skill or subject matter area, there would then be no stopping them.

As in the middle ages we might now see a real children’s crusade, as the kids, no longer only being a burden or charge on the rest of us, took back their rightful position among us, standing from a very young age as they once did, on the ground along with us, interacting with us, teaching us as well as learning from us. Once again, there would be no stopping them. Nor would we want to.

April 15, 2007

School is not Education

Everyone is familiar with the point of view that goes more or less like this:

“Students spend a relatively small number of their waking hours in school, and even fewer hours in classrooms.  Their education, if not their schooling, mostly takes place out of school. As a result their learning, or their not learning, depends more on what they bring with them to school than on what happens to them in school.”

Mihaly Csikszentmihaly’s in a 1995 essay for Daedalus is one of many writers who points to the fact that schooling and education are not the same thing. For too many, he says, "education is conceived narrowly as schooling.”

What is less generally known and recognized are the particular out-of-school societal conditions that most affect the student’s in-school learning. For Harold Howe such conditions are the following:

* A rapid decline in the time spent with adults by children across the full social and economic spectrum.

* Growing parenthood among teen-agers unaware of its responsibilities.

* A rapid growth of poverty in young families.

* An unexpectedly large, new wave of immigration since the Vietnam War.

* A major shift in the learning demands of well-paying jobs with an impact on middle-class children as well as the poor.

* A human rights revolution in the lives of racial and cultural minorities, with a serious lag in delivering its promises.

* The concentration in cities of poor and minority families along with well-hidden, similar problems in rural areas.

* The erosion of neighborhood activities to enrich children's lives as the need for them mounts because of growing poverty.

* Similar erosion of the capacity of health agencies and other services as demand exceeds supply.

As Howe points out such a list could go on and on, but this one is “sufficient to back up the assertion that non-school-related educational services are standing in need of prayer.”

In other words the out-of-school” conditions of kids’ lives are in desperate need of corrective action if we would expect schools to become places of real learning. This is the position of a number of educational writers from Jonathan Kozol, who speaks eloquently of the tormented lives of impoverished, inner city children, to David Berliner who makes it clear that poverty, joblessness, broken families, lack of health insurance, and other such conditions stand as insurmountable obstacles to kids’ learning in school.

This was my understanding of why public schooling was failing large numbers of minority and immigrant children living in impoverished urban and rural areas of our country. Then I read Robert L. Hampel’s “A Generation in Crisis” from Daedalus of September, 1998.

Hampel paints another picture entirely. Schools, all schools fail to educate large numbers of their students not principally for the reasons given above, although this is not to say that we might forget about improving the impoverished conditions of many children’s lives. This should still be a priority of government.

Hampel says that the real culprits to learning in school are what the kids are doing during the greater number of hours spent outside of school. If they do any homework at all it’s only a few hours a week. Whereas they spend inordinate amounts of time with television, video games, computers and other electronic media. They spend probably no less time “chatting” and being influenced by their friends and peers. And, as the get older, they will hold down part time jobs, for as many as 20 hours a week.

We look at our kids and see them with computers, friends, and part time jobs, and are most of all relieved that they’re not over eating and getting fat, trying drinks and drugs, not engaging in premarital sex and getting pregnant, not members of gangs, not,heaven forbid, contemplating suicide. We support them in what seem to us healthy activities. We buy them computers, encourage them to be with their friends, even help them to secure a job.

But what happens, as Hampel makes clear, is that school and classroom learning cannot compete for their interest and attention.  Their games, friends and weekly pay checks are much stronger influences in their lives. School is definitely out of the running.

Hampel doesn’t ask what we should do. What can we do? What has happened is that schooling has lost its way. For the most part it is no longer concerned with what the kids care most about.

It may very well be the mission of the school to:

“produce responsible, self-sufficient citizens who possess the self-esteem, initiative, skills,  and wisdom to continue individual growth, pursue knowledge, develop aesthetic sensibilities, and value cultural diversity by providing intellectually challenging educational programs that celebrate change but affirm tradition and promote excellence through an active partnership with the community, a comprehensive and responsive curriculum, and a dedicated and knowledgeable staff.” *

But this is not the “mission” of the kid. He is on a mission of his own and for the moment, anyway, there seems to be no connecting link between his mission and that of the school.

*The mission statement of the New Rochelle, NY, public schools of June, 1987

April 14, 2007

On Robert Epstein’s “Let’s Abolish High School.” Part One

I read as much or more than I write. And in my reading I’m always encountering others’ expressions of my own ideas, that which stops me in my tracks, as it were, from going ahead and writing down my own thoughts. For what I was going to say, as I find in so many instances, had already been better said by someone else.

Progress may very well be standing on the shoulders of those who have come before and thereby seeing further yourself. But from where I stand on others’ shoulders I see still others onto whose shoulders I first have to climb before I can even begin to see for myself. A process with apparently no end.

One such article, “Let’s Abolish High School,” by Robert Epstein, articulating many of my own thoughts, appeared just recently in “Commentary” on the back page of the publication, Education Week. Now I find my own thoughts about school and school reform thoroughly embodied by what Epstein has to say.

Epstein writes, “about 10 years ago I noticed—I couldn’t help but notice—that my 15-year-old son was remarkably mature. He balanced work and play far better than I did, and he seemed quite ready to live on his own. Why, I wondered, was he not allowed to drive or vote, and why did he have so few options? Simply because of his age, he couldn’t own property or do any interesting or fulfilling work, and he had no choice but to attend high school for several more years before getting on with his “real” life.”

Well I have an almost 10 year old grandson. He spends a couple of nights a week at our house which is near his school. When he comes in he sits right down and does his homework, that which is currently mixed numbers and improper fractions along with reading assignments from Time Magazine for kids on which he has to answer a few questions.

His homework may occupy him for about 30 minutes, a little longer if he needs to ask me a question. Once finished he goes to his computer in the big upstairs room where his grandmother and I also have our computers and are working. My grandson, while listening to some of his favorite rap or hip hop music downloaded from iTunes, plays Neopets, the online virtual pets game which allows him to create and take care of one to four of 54 species collectively called neopets.

If I were asked to determine from which activity, homework or Neopets, he was learning the most it would be Neopets hands down. On his own he has to care for his neopets, keep them alive and well by feeding them virtual food obtained by means of Neopoints which is the currency of the game. all of which taxes his numeracy, powers of memory, and judgment, as he seeks to master the intricate world of Neopia.

While watching my grandson I conclude that school and homework is just a small part of this 10 year old’s growth and development, a small part of his education. I sometimes think that school and homework are most of all restraints that prevent the child from doing the things that are most interesting and meaningful to him. In that way school may even be and often is a major obstacle to learning.

What Robert Epstein is saying about his 15 year old son is essentially true for my 10 year old grandson. Simply because of their age they're not allowed to do the things they would probably choose if left more to themselves. Instead they have to follow adult prescriptions as to what is best for them, in the case of my grandson that being improper fractions rather than the intensive, long term care of a virtual pet.

But I'm not so much saying that Neopets ought to take the place of school. Rather that school ought to give more place to what’s most interesting and stimulating in the life of a 10 year old boy. This particular boy is not excited by mixed numbers. (Neither am I.) All this is not too different from having the boy listen to Mozart while the “music” that he is hearing is Rap. Shouldn't we go more with what he hears than with what he is supposed to be listening to? In general we want them to hear, but we can only make them listen.

Finally, of what is my 10 year old grandson capable? In my experience the 10 year old's mental abilities are much more advanced than the demands placed on those abilities in school. We're not tapping into what kids are capable of.

For example, the other day I asked my grandson how he could be like all children, like only some children, and like no other child.*  Why "Bonpapa," he said, "like all children aren't I human, and like some children, I'm fast, or slow, or maybe crippled, but I'm really not like anybody else."

Try asking that of one of your adult friends. Then see if his answer is as well formulated as that of my 10 year old grandson. (He also correctly gave me the answer to the riddle of the Sphinx the first time I asked.)

*See Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray, "Personality Formation: The Determinants," in idem, eds., Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture (New York: Knopf, 1950), pp. 35-48. "Every child, to is like all other children, like some other children, and like no other child."