Teaching Peace along with routine education: A simple and easy to implement strategy for a peaceful happy world

In this paper the authors propose ways of implementing peace education andintegrating it in the routine curriculum. Unlike the teaching of academic and vocational skills, which are based on the transmission of knowledge and skills alone, peace education is based on understanding of human motives and, above all, on example.The key individuals in the effort of peace education are teachers in primary, secondary and higher education, and the point at which peace education has to start is in the training of future teachers. Peace education has to communicate both values supportive of peace and non-violence, and the reasoning and interpersonal skills required for non-violent conflict resolution. Rather than introducing formal instruction in”peace science”, teachers may find it more effective to introduce the subject informally with examples that illustrate the value of non-violence, and examples of the ways in which violent conflict can be avoided or resolved. Herein, it is emphasized that peace education can be introduced effectively by merging it with the existing education system. The current paper outlines the concept for introducing peace education and provides an implementation strategy, contributes unique methods, and offers novel suggestions regarding its why, where and how

Should Cognitive Differences Research Be Forbidden?

Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences, including differences between ethnic and racial groups, needs to be prevented because it produces true knowledge that is dangerous and socially undesirable. From a consequentialist perspective, this contribution investigates the usually unstated assumptions about harms and benefits behind these proposals. The conclusion is that intelligence differences provide powerful explanations of many important real-world phenomena, and that denying their causal role requires the promotion of alternative false beliefs. Acting on these false beliefs almost invariably prevents the effective management of societal problems while creating new ones. The proper questions to ask are not about the nature of the research and the results it is expected to produce, but about whether prevailing value systems can turn truthful knowledge about cognitive differences into benign outcomes, whatever the truth may be. These value systems are the proper focus of action. Therefore, the proposal to suppress knowledge about cognitive ability differences must be based on the argument that people in modern societies will apply such knowledge in malicious rather than beneficial ways, either because of universal limitations of human nature or because of specific features of modern societies

Should Cognitive Differences Research Be Forbidden?

Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences is too dangerous to be allowed to proceed unchecked. From a consequentialist perspective, this contribution investigates the usually unstated assumptions about harms and benefits behind these proposals, finding that knowledge about intelligence differences is not always more harmful than alternative false beliefs. The main conclusion is that the proper questions to ask are not about the nature of the research, but about whether prevailing value systems can turn truthful knowledge about the world into benign outcomes. These value systems are the proper focus of action. Therefore, the proposal to suppress knowledge about cognitive ability differences must be based on the argument that people in modern societies are unable to apply such knowledge in benign ways, either because of universal limitations of human nature or because of specific features of modern societies

Should Cognitive Differences Research Be Forbidden?

Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences is too dangerous to be allowed to proceed unchecked. From a consequentialist perspective, this contribution investigates the usually unstated assumptions about harms and benefits behind these proposals, finding that knowledge about intelligence differences is not always more harmful than alternative false beliefs. The main conclusion is that the proper questions to ask are not about the nature of the research, but about whether prevailing value systems can turn truthful knowledge about the world into benign outcomes. These value systems are the proper focus of action. Therefore, the proposal to suppress knowledge about cognitive ability differences must be based on the argument that people in modern societies are unable to apply such knowledge in benign ways, either because of universal limitations of human nature or because of specific features of modern societies

Opinions about Teaching Modalities: A Comparison between Faculty and Students

Little is known about the acceptance of different teaching/learning modalities by students and faculty in the preclinical semesters of medical school. We report the results of an anonymous survey at Ross University School of Medicine, where most of the currently popular instructional methods are used. Study subjects included 327 students and 30 faculty members. 5 questions each were asked about lectures, handouts, textbooks, mediasite (video-recorded lectures), simulation, PBL (problem based learning), TBL (team-based learning), and ICM (introduction to clinical medicine, physical examination) practicals, scored on a 5-step Likert scale. Response rates were approximately 80% for students and more than 50% for faculty. Students gave the highest scores to mediasite followed by simulation, handouts, and ICM practicals. Lowest student scores were for PBL followed by TBL and textbooks. Faculty gave highest scores for lectures, followed by ICM practicals and textbooks. They gave the lowest scores for TBL followed by mediasite and PBL. Differences between students and faculty were statistically significant for lectures (P < .001), mediasite (P = .001), textbooks (P = .002), and PBL (P = .043)