Quote from: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 07:19:59 AM

Quote from: sturle on November 02, 2012, 07:07:01 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 02:14:36 AM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 10:54:38 PM

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Fascinating. Not the articles. That you even know the terms. However, neither of those articles imply any great loss of sense of achievement if no free option is available. And the link to taxes, is of course, non-existent.

Yes. If there is a free option available, the effort invested is proportionally higher. If you want private schools to come out really badly, try giving people money to send their kids there. You got the reward, and don't have to justify it by convincing yourself it is a better school. As for taxes, please google that yourself.

I almost see the logic here. But then I realize that it's not logic, it's a fallacy. You do understand that cognitive dissonance is not something to be sought, right? That effort justification is a perceived difference, like rating the same wine better if you're told it's $200 a bottle than if you're told it's $20? Whereas the difference between public schooling and private schooling is quantifiable?

The effect is quantifiable. It actually works for precisely the same reason that many alternative treatments, prayer and whatnot works. It works by the same mechanism as the placebo effect. Any treatment works very well if you believe it works. Only a very few people has a rare gene which code for placebo immunity. There is the Nocebo effect as well -- if you believe something will make you ill, it probably will. You may look up Confirmation Bias as well.

There is one more reason why private schools achieve better results. By average pupils at private schools have better educated parents than pupils at public schools, and there is a huge correlation between parents education level and their children's grades at school.

Quote from: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 07:19:59 AM

Quote from: sturle on November 02, 2012, 07:07:01 AM

One or two dollars a year, huh? No wonder the average life expectancy in Britain at the time was 31 years.

You seem to think that expending more money confers some magical quality upon healthcare that makes it better. Yet you also advocate spending fully half as much money on healthcare per capita. You must want my grammy to die!

You can choose to spend your money on insurance companies, or you can choose to spend the money on doctors, hospitals and medicine. The latter will improve your health at a lower cost than the former. Send the money directly where the money are needed, and don't let unnecessary people and companies take their cut on the way.

Edit: Fixed quoting