My Children Will Go To School For Free

I’m going to pay into a savings account every day for 21 years starting at the time each of my children is conceived. The cost will be approximately $13 per day, assuming a fairly good interest rate on 5 year CDs. This will mean investing approximately $96,000 in for each child’s future with an additional $24,000 in interest, allowing my children to go to any school they want for free, for 4 years when the total cost of school is $30,000 or less. Put simply: over 21 years paying only $13 per day, I will have $120,000 saved for my child.

Now, many of you may be saying that my child should pay for school in order to instill that financial responsibility. After all, I have help for my schooling, but I have to pay for a certain amount of it as well. The thing is I am paying through loans, at least for my first two years. Therein lays the problem. Teaching financial responsibility is incredibly hard to do when you’re telling your child that they should not take out loans or use credit cards under any circumstances, yet they need to take out loans because they “have” to go to school. (The necessity of a degree is a whole different topic) In order to remedy this, I’m going to pay for their education. I’ll pay tuition, room and board, and any EDUCATIONAL fees (technology, university fees, etc.). They, of course, will be paying to go out to eat or party or whatever else they may do and, if they can’t afford it, they better reevaluate their lifestyle or get a job.

Financial responsibility is a whole-life concept that should be taught at a young age. In a speech today on campus, Adam Carroll told a story about a father-daughter day in which they were about to go out and collect some “passive income” – his 5-year-old’s words. Why isn’t everyone taught solid financial planning and principles when they’re five years old? Because our society is one that likes to live a large lifestyle without large income and without large savings. Again in Adam’s words, “Normal equals BROKE.” To be in debt, to live a large lifestyle and have no savings is the norm in our society. According to CNN Money, 25% of people have saved LESS THAN $10,000 for retirement. What are they thinking?

They’re thinking exactly what they’ve been taught. Society has taught them to spend and live this way. This is why we need formal education reform which includes things like financial responsibility and intelligence. That’s why my children will be paying for their own cars and cell phones. They’ll pay to go out to eat, to buy movies or music, to hang out with friends. In fact, my kids will be paying for everything that my wife and I deem not to be a necessity. Education is a necessity. That’s why my children will go to school for free. And I’m not the least bit worried about it.

Protective Laws

Read this first: http://thecurvature.com/2008/10/20/15-year-old-arrested-for-pornographic-photographs-of-herself/

The author is completely missing the point! "The problem here isn't that the teenage girls photographed themselves," "law enforcement officials need to stop spending time telling teenage girls that their very bodies are vulgar and punishable offenses...," "This is policing a teenage girl's sexuality." Are you kidding me?? No, we probably shouldn't be arresting teens for this, but we absolutely DO need to find ways to keep them from doing it! It's illegal and it's for their own protection! This is not about censorship or self-empowerment, this is about protecting minors from themselves and the stupidity of their peers. Teens make mistakes, it's a part of life. But actions do need to be taken to protect them from mistakes that can threaten their safety (as seen in this post by the same author: http://thecurvature.com/2009/12/02/13-year-old-girl-commits-suicide-after-classmates-spread-nude-photos/) This is why you cannot drive, smoke, drink, or have sex (legally) at 13 or 15 years old. The laws are there to PROTECT, they aren't just there because some old guys decided they wanted to prevent teens from having fun.

What's A Degree?

What is a college degree? Is it really important in the grand scheme of life? Or is it just a piece of paper that you pay thousands of dollars for and hang on your wall? Obviously, there are some careers that require certain degrees or certifications such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs, teachers, engineers, and the like. But is that business, graphic design, or journalism degree really necessary? How much do you learn in those classes that you can’t learn in job training or a quick Google search? Professors talk about the need to know the history of the profession or concepts in order to know why things work. However, when you get into your career field, you’ll find that the history of the profession is often useless; sure, it got the field to where it is, but you want to help move the industry forward, not back. Similarly, you will probably need the concepts, but you will rarely need to know who or how the concepts were discovered, you just need to know how to apply them; again, something that often comes in job training.

Take, for example my roommate, friend, and occasional inspiration, Jeffrey Hirsch. Recently, Jeff went to Nashville, Tennessee for a country music convention in order to meet people from the industry and learn more about the record label side of the business. This trip was completely unrelated to school and he had to miss a week of classes in order to attend. During this trip, he met many people in the record label and music business and, through conversation and seeing the industry in action, he learned straight from the source how different aspects of marketing and advertising worked together, how certain things could then lead to the need for public relations knowledge, and how all these things actually apply in the country music industry. Few of the people he talked to would have actually been able to tell him the name of the principles they were using, yet they are generally successful business people. In fact, Jeff found that he would meet people who were proud of the fact that they were successful with no education at all.

But education is so important! Yes, it is. But is it necessary? And how much are you really learning? You can go to class every day, get straight A’s, and I will still argue that you have not necessarily learned anything. Many students never actually learn the material presented in their classes, they simply stuff the information into their head long enough to spit it back out on a test. This is not learning. If I gave students a test made up of random test questions from classes they have taken and don’t give you time to “study,” which would actually just be stuffing as much information into your head as possible, I bet the majority of students would fail. Learning means knowing something so well you can recreate it, even years later. Memorization is simply storing information for a period of time. The problem is memory is faulty and you lose most things in memory if you do not regularly go over the information.

So what is a degree? A degree for the vast majority of people is a piece of paper that says “This person is very good at memorizing information for a short period of time, but they never actually learned anything.” I’ve told Jeff—and I truly believe this—that he has taught me more important and applicable concepts and ideas than any class in college. He’s taught me at least one way to make my money work for me instead of me working for my money. He’s also turned me on to a number of ideas and authors. As I read these books and listen to Mr. Hirsch, I find myself thinking more and more in terms of these concepts, applying them to my life when possible. This is true learning: discovering or hearing something and then applying it to life. This is exactly what a degree does not do. A degree is what Daniel Pink would call an “if-then” reward. These say, “if you do this, then you receive this.” Pink examines these rewards in much more depth in his book Drive: the Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, but what you need to know is that “if-then” rewards actually decrease the target behavior, which would be actual learning in a college setting. Students are told that if they meet the requirements for GPA, credit hours, etc., then they will receive their degree. This encourages students to do anything they can simply to meet the requirements given them. They no longer have any incentive to learn for the sake of learning; they want to “learn” in order to get a piece of paper that supposedly opens all kinds of doors. Students are suddenly not opposed to taking shortcuts because they are only working toward that piece of paper instead of working toward mastery of a particular subject. When working toward mastery, taking shortcuts only hurts the individual student. But when a student is working toward a degree, shortcuts are simply the means to an end.

This is the problem with our college-driven society. In other countries and cultures, many people attend universities simply for the sake of learning. A degree is not needed in many countries because most people just take over the family business. In the United States, however, our society is obsessed with college degrees and higher learning, which actually causes an inflation in the value of a college degree. 30 years ago, you didn’t need a college degree to get a job in most places. 10 years ago, people started realizing they needed to get a bachelor’s degree to get a job, regardless of what the degree was in. Today, even bachelor’s degrees aren’t enough in some cases. Why the sudden need for higher degrees? Has the nature of jobs today really changed that much? You could argue that either way, but the majority of change has gone from mechanical work with constant rules and laws into a more fluid, creative sector that higher education simply cannot teach.

The most important knowledge you can have is in common sense and financial literacy if you wish to be successful in today’s world. You don’t need a college degree to know how to buy houses and rent them out, or to invest in stable stocks and ride them out for 20 or 30 years as they grow. Some of the most successful people in the world have no college degree, they simply had a great idea at the right time and jumped into it, refusing to fail because if they did, they would have nothing. Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many others have either no college education or they dropped out well before receiving their degrees, and yet they are either on the cutting edge of today’s technology and communications or the richest people in the world…or both. Success does not hinge on your education. Success is made up of common sense, smart financial planning, smart investments, and just a tiny bit of luck.

The Laws of Attraction, Men vs. Women

Every day, people are surrounded by peers of varying races, genders, occupations, and social statuses. As humans, it is only natural that we are always on the lookout for potential mates, with perhaps the first, most instantaneous criteria a person looks for being attraction. But what exactly is attraction? Are there universal traits that are always seen as attractive or does each person have a completely unique set of preferences in a potential mate?

Attraction

Dr. Christopher Heffner (2001), who created the website AllPsych.com, combines many existing theories about attraction into five main points. The first aspect of attraction is proximity. Nahemow and Lawton (1975) conducted a study in New York City in which researchers interviewed tenants of a certain housing project about who their three closest friends were and where those friends lived. They found that 88% of respondents’ closest friends in the same building as their friends and almost half of the friends lived on the same floor. This effect was seen equally among ages, races (blacks, whites, and Puerto Ricans), and gender (Nahemow & Lawton, 1975). This shows that people we live or work with on a daily basis are likely to be perceived as more attractive.

Heffner’s second point of attraction is association. Closely related to both proximity and his third point, similarity, Heffner claims that “we tend to associate our opinions about other people with our current state” (Heffner, 2001). For example, if a person thoroughly enjoys their job, people they work with are likely to be viewed in a favorable light. Likewise, a person who strongly dislikes their job is more likely to have a less positive view of their coworkers because said person associates coworkers with an unpleasant situation.
On the other hand, similarity, Heffner’s third section of attraction, is seemingly more powerful than association. Although the originating study is not currently accessible without charge, Heffner sums up Neimeyer and Mitchell’s (1988) study by saying that “the agreement or similarity between the two [coworkers] would likely result in more attractiveness” (Heffner, 2001). As long as a person’s coworkers hold the same attitude about the workplace as the person does, the attractiveness increases despite the association with an unpleasant situation because the two people are similar.

The fourth integral piece of attraction is reciprocal liking. Generally, people like to be liked. This is an instinct that shows from very early in infancy. Connected with similarity, infants are much more interested in people and things that match their movements because it is similar to them. In inter-personal interactions, when a baby smiles and “talks,” they interact much more positively with familiar people who respond with smiles and cooing or talking than people who do not imitate their movements (Parker-Rees, 2007). Meltzoff (1990) conducted an experiment involving two adults and two 14-month-olds. One of the adults was instructed to imitate the movements of one child while the other adult was told they should respond to the child’s movements, but not with the same actions (Meltzoff, 1990). The 14-month-olds responded much more positively to the adult who imitated their movements compared to the adult who did not. This effect occurs throughout life, in a slightly different form as a person ages. As adults, people who match our stance, talking style, and movements seem much more likeable than people who adopt their own stance and style. We like others who are similar to us and so a person reciprocating our movements shows that like us, making them more attractive.
Finally, the last and most conscious aspect of attraction, as well as the aspect that this study will focus on, is physical attractiveness. We are much more likely to be friends with people who are physically attractive and who we perceive to be close to our level of physical attractiveness (Heffner, 2001). Heffner further divides this point, saying physical attractiveness is a sum of sub-categories such as sense of humor, education, wealth, and physical attractiveness.


Research

The first study relating to physical attractiveness was conducted by Sarah Casey, Marion Mernagh, and Fiona Newell (2009). They wanted to know if attractiveness of a face is determined more by features of sexual dimorphism or if attractiveness is based on a typical, “average” face (Casey, Mernagh, & Newell, 2009). They studied 30 undergraduate students, 24 females and 6 males who were asked to rate each computer-generated face for attractiveness. Forty original faces were generated and then manipulated to create their opposite-sex equivalent and an “antiface” which was the original face morphed through the “average” face for a total of 120 faces, half male, half female. Antifaces were generated to be the exact opposite of the original face. For example, if the original face had small eyes and a large nose, the antiface would have large eyes and a small nose. It was also generated to be closer to the “average” face due to technical reasons. Casey et.al (2009) found that participants consistently rated original faces and their opposite-sex derivatives equally attractive, while antifaces were consistently rated more attractive than either of the other two (Casey, Mernagh, & Newell, 2009). In fact, original and opposite-sex faces were rated significantly lower than the antifaces, leading Casey et.al to conclude that attractiveness depends more on the typicality of a face versus, not the sexual dimorphism of a face (Casey, Mernagh, & Newell, 2009). This supported previous research linking averageness of a face to attractiveness (Rhodes, 2006). This research shows that people are not necessarily more attracted to others who would be good potential mates based on sexual dimorphism; rather, faces that are similar to the average face for the particular culture is more attractive. This would seemingly be contradictory to the basic laws of evolution and Darwin’s survival of the fittest, suggesting human beings’ definition of physical attractiveness has changed greatly over time.
In a study of manipulated economic success, Michael J. Dunn and Robert Searle (2010) used a male and a female model and took pictures of each of them in a red Ford Fiesta ST and a silver Bentley Continental GT, signifying a low-status car and a high-status car, respectively. The pictures were then quasi-randomly presented to participants who were recruited from a shopping center with male participants receiving a picture with the female model and female participants receiving a picture with the male model. Participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of the model within one minute of being presented with the picture. There was also a space for participants to declare their sexual orientation with only heterosexual participants being included in the data. No mention of the car model was made to participants when they were asked to rate the model for attractiveness (Dunn & Searle, 2010). Their results found that, while males rated the female model equally attractive in either condition, females rated the male model significantly higher when he was portrayed in the high-status condition. It was also found that males rated the female model much higher in the neutral status than females rated the male model, but there was no significant difference when the models were seated in the high-status condition. These results show that females find males significantly more attractive when they are associated with high-status possessions whereas males are unaffected by high-status versus neutral-status possessions. Dunn and Searle suggest that, since no specific attention was drawn to which car the models were sitting in, females may process subtle cues about status unconsciously whereas males appear to either focus on physical attraction alone, or they discount other subtle cues that females pay attention to (Dunn & Searle, 2010). Even something as small as a suggestion of high status can cause women to perceive a man as much more attractive than she would normally think without that suggestion.
Elliot et.al (2010) examined the subtle use of red as status symbol in men, theorizing that women would be more attracted to men who are associated with the color red because it symbolizes a higher status. They used seven different experiments to analyze the effect of red. If, at any point, participants indicated they knew what was going on by mentioning color or the dependent measures, they would be asked to leave and their data would not be used. None of the participants guessed the purpose of the experiment correctly (Elliot, et al., 2010).
The first experiment presented participants with a black and white photo which was either mounted on a white background or a red background. Participants (all women) viewed the photo for five seconds, then were then asked to rate the attractiveness of the male in the picture on a scale of 1 to 9. Results from the first experiment showed that participants in the red background condition rated the man in the photo higher than the participants in the white background condition, suggesting that color can act as an unconscious influence on participants’ ratings (Elliot, et al., 2010).

The second experiment tested whether the effect exists only in women, or if men experience the same effect. A new set of fifty-seven participants was shown the same photo with the same background and asked to rate the attractiveness of the man. Results showed that women continued to rate the man on a red background higher than the man on a white background, but there was no effect among men. Men rated the picture approximately equally attractive regardless of the background color. Participants were again ignorant of the affect of color on their responses (Elliot, et al., 2010).

Experiment three studied the effect of red versus gray, and whether the red effect elicits a sexual attraction as well as general attractiveness. In this experiment, a new male model was used, switching from a moderately attractive Caucasian man to a moderately attractive Latino man. In addition, all participants were again women. The photo was placed on either a red or gray background and was presented to participants for five seconds. Participants then rated the man on his attractiveness, their sexual attraction to him, and his overall likability. Results showed that women continued to find the photo on a red background more attractive overall and sexually. Likability was not affected by color.

Experiments 4-7 examined different changes in color, examining green in place of red, testing perceived status based on the color of shirt a man was wearing, whether high or low status was more attractive, and the effect of red versus blue in shirt color on attractiveness. All seven experiments supported the hypothesis of a “red effect,” with women consistently finding men associated with the color red as having a higher status and being more attractive. The experiments were run in both the Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere with background and shirt color presentation, six different target models, and with overall attraction as well as sexual attraction (Elliot, et al., 2010). Only one participant guessed what the study was about and, even with that participant’s responses removed, the data remained the same. This extensive research shows strong support for the red effect; that women are especially in-tune with the color red, regardless of how it is presented (background versus clothing) and that it is viewed as not only a social status indicator, but also more attractive than other colors.

Discussion

Attraction among human beings is difficult to define as much of the actual process of attraction goes on unconsciously, with only a small part of the process occurring after we take conscious notice of a given person and actually rate them on the physical attractiveness aspect. Many things go into the processing of attraction, including our subconscious association of them with certain situations and, for women, the status and any colors associated with the male in question. This research is important for our everyday lives. It can also help people to understand their inter-personal relationships with the people around them. With the aid of these studies, people can better understand why they don’t feel particularly favorable toward the people they work with. It’s not because the people aren’t likeable or kind, it’s because that coworkers have been associated with an unpleasant situation. We can also be much more conscious of how people around us are trying to convey themselves when we are in social situations, especially situations with high levels of sexual tension such as bars or group dates. Finally, these studies serve as the basis for a great deal of future research into the brain and the biological processes behind attraction. Creating a large opening for researchers interested in social psychology, especially with respect to inter-personal relationships.

References

Casey, S. J., Mernagh, M., & Newell, F. N. (2009). Are attractive facial characteristics peculiar to the sex of a face? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 833-843.
Dunn, M. J., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. British Journal of Psychology , 69-80.
Elliot, A. J., Geitemeyer, T., Gramzow, R. H., Kayser, D. N., Lichtenfeld, S., Maier, M. A., et al. (2010). Red, Rank, and Romance in Women Viewing Men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 399-417.
Heffner, C. L. (2001, April 1). Attribution and Attraction. Retrieved December 14, 2010, from AllPsych Online: The Virtual Psychology Classroom: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/index.html
Meltzoff, A. N. (1990). Foundations for developing a concept of self: the role of imitation in relating self to other and the value of social mirroring, social modeling, and self practice in infancy. The self in transition: infancy to childhood , 139-164.
Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 205-213.
Parker-Rees, R. (2007). Liking to be liked: imitation, familiarity, and pedagogy in the first years of life. Early Years , 3-17.
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology , 199-226.

Brilliance!

Again, someone who can explain things much better than I. How many of you knew your house was a liability?



Adam Carroll is an incredibly intelligent man, especially on financial matters. He argues that you should be trying to build up these things called "Massive Passive Permanent Streams of Income." Check out his book to find out why and how!

Drive

This talk by Daniel Pink is almost a summary of his newest book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.  I highly recommend that you pick up the book and read it.  I'm only about halfway through, but I've seen Mr. Pink speak at Drake University and the findings that he puts together to make his case are somewhat shocking based on today's business model!  I won't say much more, as he does a much better job of explaining things than I ever could, but the book is a must-read!

The Secrets of Time

Someone is finally starting to recognize the differences between children 30, 20, or even as little as 10 years ago! Philip Zimbardo, creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment explains the secrets of the 6 time zones and how they are affecting the changes taking place in how kids grow up, behave, and learn. Check it out!