When Less is More by canttakesky

I'm skeptical. He replaces math with some good general ideas, getting interested in the kids, getting kids interested, which is good for education, but invalidates his experiment. If you were to treat kids as human *and* teach them math, they'd probably do better. In india, children are taught fundamental logic that underlies math before they are taught math, and as a result, the students perform far better.

I only went to four years of school myself, but the math was lost on me. I already knew my multiplication and division before starting school, so being introduced to it in school year after year was just hopelessly redundant.

Still, if I look at the board, I would put math and logic right at the top of things that people need to learn. Basically all of my disagreements with your own scientific arguments and those that you post, for example, come down to math - as do about half of my problems with science posted on the board from most of the people here - and I think of us as being a fairly scientifically inclined group.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dream,

This is one situation where you may have inadvertently insulted your audience. Your statements might be reduced to the following sentence: "If you all were not so hopelessly ignorant of mathematics, you would not make the mistake of disagreeing with me (or posting disagreeable nonsense) nearly as often."

Which is probably not what you meant to say, or at least not the attitude you meant to convey.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm skeptical. He replaces math with some good general ideas, getting interested in the kids, getting kids interested, which is good for education, but invalidates his experiment.

An experiment is what it is. It isn't "valid" or "invalid."

Conclusions are valid or invalid. They have to fit the data gathered, and the manner by which the data is gathered.

The factor that one manipulates in the experiment is called the independent variable (IV). In this experiment, the IV is the substitution of formal arithmetic with storytelling and practical experience with numbers.

The factor that one measures in the experiment is called the dependent variable (DV). In this experiment, the DV are math scores in the 6th grade.

The control group is schools with normal, formal arithmetic education.

Taking the summary of the experiment at face value (without the details to evaluate methodology more closely), this is what you can conclude:

---> In Manchester, NH, at that time, some schools which substituted formal arithmetic with storytelling and practical experience with numbers yielded same or higher math scores and math understanding as schools with formal arithmetic curricula.

What you cannot conclude:
---> Substituting formal arithmetic with storytelling and practical experience with numbers will always yield same or higher math scores as schools with formal arithmetic curricula everywhere.
---> Substituting formal arithmetic with storytelling and practical experience with numbers CAUSES same or higher math scores compared to schools with formal arithmetic curricula.

There are a lot of confounders, more than I can list. But here are some off the top of my head.

1. They took away something, which we assume is the IV: formal arithmetic. But at the same time, they also took away other factors: teaching of math phobia, rote memorization, repetitive meaningless tedium, etc.

2. They added something, which we assume is storytelling etc. But at the same time, they also added other factors: more personal interaction, more attention to significant events in their lives, etc.

3. What if formal arithmetic were taught be better teachers? Or in a funner, more hands on way? The experiment did not control for method of formal arithmetic. This limits the ability to generalize the results to ALL types of formal arithmetic education.

So, in reality, it is not an issue of whether an experiment is "valid" or not. It is whether the results are generalizable, the conclusions are valid, and whether the experiment could have better controlled for confounders to make results MORE generalizable.

Having said that, I believe this experiment raises very good questions I would like to see addressed by the educational system. Don't have time to elaborate now--later.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Which is probably not what you meant to say, or at least not the attitude you meant to convey.

No, you hit the nail on the head, Anthony. That was exactly what he meant to say.

He thinks my math and scientific skills and reasoning are hideously inferior to his. He has told me so outright.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:53 AM

BYTEMITE

Lol, logic and math. Ya'll are flirting with me, be honest.

I think most of the disagreements on the board don't really stem from an absence of math skills. Most of them are partisan. Some are over technicalities, a few are over bits and pieces of obscure knowledge.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Which is probably not what you meant to say, or at least not the attitude you meant to convey.
No, you hit the nail on the head, Anthony. That was exactly what he meant to say.

No it's not. I meant to say that my biggest problems with many things post is the math part. Sometimes these theories may be correct, or have very sound ideas in them, but they fail me because the math fails me. In a world of science, the math will win out, and those without a sound mathematical argument behind them will be lost in the shuffle.

CTS is irked that I didn't like her cell phone argument on the grounds that the math didn't work, but this is minor.

There were much more major issues here on the board raged on, even for years, about economics, climate change and the political feasibility of ideas that were often radically out of sync with the underlying mathematics.

It's not that my math is right, or my abilities are anything other than ordinary, but that people don't or won't make the mathematical argument.

I often get the feeling that "well, I believe in [GW]" for example, and then if you don't agree with their argument posted, they're like "and you don't, because you're a) ignorant, b) nasty or c) hold some opposing belief system" when this is simply not the case. Arguments presented, many, many of them, are mathematically weak, and I think they remain so because people would rather hurl insults than back up their arguments, because, well, it's easier.

CTS, no, it's not you. We had one brief exchange on this, and an earlier one a year or two ago about homeopathy, where I had a similar problem, that the number of water molecules was just too large for the electomagnetic effects to transfer across. That's a simple mathematical gripe.

By comparison I've had many long drawn out arguments with magon, kiki, sig, citizen, where I had the very same issue: I thought the argument lacked a mathematical basis.

I don't think you "don't have the ability" I think you "avoid the topic" because it's easier to make an emotional argument than to make a scientific proof. I don't think you're dumb, and I think that you often bring concerns which are valid, like the radiation from cell phones, but you fall back on some quasi-mystical sources, and a very defensive position, rather than making the case.

Also, about this, there is something that has been annoying me a lot lately, and this is more not CTS, but a few other people here.

I get a lot of this "oh, DT claims to have such and such ability." It's really insulting. Okay, I'm a hillbilly and I don't have an education but that doesn't mean I don't have a brain.

Any human should be able to be well versed in any topics of conversation, right? That's why we discuss all topics on the board. It's things that any human would know. We talk about science, physics, politics, medicine, etc. We talk about everything.

Well, every time we go into a new topic I get this "oh, there goes DT thinking he knows about this subject as well." WTF? Surely everyone you know in real life knows as much about all of these topics as I do. If it were not so, how would you ever be able to converse in the real world with anyone? So, why am I getting bumped down to this inferior position where my opinion is only valid in certain subjects?

I'm really sick of it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Lol, logic and math. Ya'll are flirting with me, be honest.

That is one thing I REALLY like about you, Byte. As far as I have seen, your logic is flawless. We may disagree on values and premises, and therefore arrive at different conclusions. But as long as we speak the language of logic, we can communicate with you.

Quote:
I think most of the disagreements on the board don't really stem from an absence of math skills. Most of them are partisan. Some are over technicalities, a few are over bits and pieces of obscure knowledge.

Agreed.

As far as "scientific" disagreements go, I find most disagreements stem from which scientific facts/observations/laws each person believes is non-negotiable. It seems to me that most disagreements are voiced as, "Y is NOT POSSIBLE because it conflicts with X premise, which cannot be wrong."

Or conversely, "Z MUST be true, because it is supported by X premise, which cannot be wrong. Furthermore, anyone who questions either Y or Z is an ignorant moron."

A lot of arguments are about the applicability of the X premise on either Y or Z. Or overlooking additional factors and variables.

The rest, as you say are over technicalities, such as definitions, misinterpretations of exact wording of an argument, etc. Stupid bickering, of which I am most guilty of.

None of it is about math. Sometimes there is a little statistics involved, but not much.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Lol, logic and math. Ya'll are flirting with me, be honest.

I think most of the disagreements on the board don't really stem from an absence of math skills. Most of them are partisan. Some are over technicalities, a few are over bits and pieces of obscure knowledge.

Not an absence of skills, and absence of actually doing the math. I have no doubt, for example, that SignyM's math skills are superior to my own, that's not the point. The point is that she doesn't use them. It's definitely not stupidity, she's a pretty smart cookie, and it's not laziness, she puts a lot of effort into it, that isn't what I meant by "easier" just now.

It's that if you enter into a mathematically based argument, you could lose.

It's that simple. If you never want to lose, then you can play up emotional points, fear-based arguments, and get your terrified audience to cave.

I didn't say that students who didn't study math wouldn't know math. Of course they would. Math is pretty obvious. But what they don't do is they don't put arguments to any mathematical or logical test. They weigh entirely on the emotions of the topic. This is the way our whole political system operates.

If we do this, and we don't test the ideas, and we don't lose arguments, we don't challenge our beliefs and we never move on to other points we could learn more about.

Very early on in my posting here, years ago, I responded to Rue's "Everything I know I learned by the grace of others" by saying "Most of what I know I learned by losing an argument with an asshole." I mean it, too. At first, I reject the argument, and then I get angry, because I've been knocked down a peg from my high horse where I upheld some lofty ideals, and then it starts to sink in. Usually about 3 months down the road, I start to realize that asshole had a point.

I also get that when you do that, be the asshole, you're voluntarily taking a hit, because no one is going to thank you for it. But if we don't move on from this hinging on emotional plays we will never move on to something that is science. And science, ultimately, has to face the numbers.

In particular, this is a problem in our local fracking debate. The frackers have presented a very flawed mathematical argument, which would easily be sunk by anyone who actually took it on. But very few do. Instead, we fall back on our good friend emotional play, and we show sick cows and kids, and then the frackers show off their big money and jobs. Then we're in an emotional tug of war. We can lose that. Then that shifts into a partisan battle which we can definitely lose. However, if we went back to the numbers, we could make an argument that defeats their whole underlying pitch:

Frackers: We have a trillion cubic feet.
Us: Okay, maybe so. Divide that by 5000 and some.
Frackers: You got us. Trillion sounded big, b Multiply that times $100 barrel THat's 20 billion dollars!
Us: more like 180 mil, and times 30, so, yeah, the gas under the earth, assuming your estimates are right is like 5.4 billion.
Frackers: Still BILLIONS!

This ain't calculus, guys, this is some pretty simple math, it just slower to go through and you run the risk of losing.

Us: Recover cost. Anyone remember that? It's going to cost us quite a bit to get that gas out of the ground.
Frackers: Yeah, but you don't know how much
Us: No, we don't, but we could google it. It's going to be a lot. (If I spent more time here, I'd have numbers)
Frackers: It doesn't really cost us anything.
Us: That's amazing. You're really doing this without subsidies?
Frackers: No, we have subsidies.
Us: Okay, so it's only recoverable with subsidies?
Frackers: No
Us: So, you're willing to forgo subsidies
Frackers: No

US: Okay, So we have $5.4 billion, minus the cost of getting it out. But we're paying you billions in subsidies for this. Why are we doing that?

My guess is if I actually did the above math and research I'd find they made $2-3 billion, and that we gave them substantially more than that in subsidies.

But when I enter into that sort of argument, I run the risk of losing, and I take on the burden of research.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:57 AM

MAL4PREZ

CTS: I feel your pain. As a high school physics teacher, I have a number of students who, by the end of the year, tell me "Oh, I get what all that math *means* now!" And yet, a few of our math teachers demand a sharp line between science and math.

I well remember hours of learning long division in elementary, dozens of problems worked for days and weeks and years it seemed, with the purpose of keeping us busy more than actually teaching us anything. I don't understand why math has to develop so slowly, and focus on such boring crap for so many years.

For more on that:

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

Excerpts:
If your art teacher were to tell you that painting is all about filling in numbered regions, you would know that something was wrong. The culture informs you— there are museums and galleries, as well as the art in your own home. Painting is well understood by society as a medium of human expression. Likewise, if your science teacher tried to convince you that astronomy is about predicting a person’s future based on their date of birth, you would know she was crazy— science has seeped into the culture to such an extent that almost everyone knows about atoms and galaxies and laws of nature. But if your math teacher gives you the impression, either expressly or by default, that mathematics is about formulas and definitions and memorizing algorithms, who will set you straight?

...

There is surely no more reliable way to kill enthusiasm and interest in a subject than to make it a mandatory part of the school curriculum. Include it as a major component of standardized testing and you virtually guarantee that the education establishment will suck the life out of it. School boards do not understand what math is, neither do educators, textbook authors, publishing companies, and sadly, neither do most of our math teachers. The scope of the problem is so enormous, I hardly know where to begin.

Let’s start with the “math reform” debacle. For many years there has been a growing awareness that something is rotten in the state of mathematics education. Studies have been commissioned, conferences assembled, and countless committees of teachers, textbook publishers, and educators (whatever they are) have been formed to “fix the problem.” Quite apart from the self-serving interest paid to reform by the textbook industry (which profits from any minute political fluctuation by offering up “new” editions of their unreadable monstrosities), the entire reform movement has always missed the point. The mathematics curriculum doesn’t need to be reformed, it needs to be scrapped.

All this fussing and primping about which “topics” should be taught in what order, or the use of this notation instead of that notation, or which make and model of calculator to use, for god’s sake— it’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic! Mathematics is the music of reason. To do mathematics is to engage in an act of discovery and conjecture, intuition and inspiration; to be in a state of confusion— not because it makes no sense to you, but because you gave it sense and you still don’t understand what your creation is up to; to have a breakthrough idea; to be frustrated as an artist; to be awed and overwhelmed by an almost painful beauty; to be alive, damn it. Remove this from mathematics and you can have all the conferences you like; it won’t matter. Operate all you want, doctors: your patient is already dead.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:01 AM

Quote:
CTS

None of it is about math. Sometimes there is a little statistics involved, but not much.

Agreed. But that's precisely my problem with it. It's not difficult math, it's simple math everyone can do, but no one does, because they would risk losing the argument.

A lot of the debates on the board are much like having a shouting match instead of a chess game. A chess game is very possible to lose, and anyone could play, and anyone could lose. People don't feel comfy with that. A shouting match they all feel confident they can win.

But when we get into a shouting match, everyone loses.

See my above response to Byte. It's not about being right, it's about willing to risk being wrong.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTS is irked that I didn't like her cell phone argument on the grounds that the math didn't work, but this is minor.

My disagreement was not with the math, which I have no problems with. I didn't think the math relevant or applicable to the question at hand. But that's not what irked me. What irked me was your calling me a math and science moron whose conclusions are all religiously based.

Quote:
CTS, no, it's not you. We had one brief exchange on this, and an earlier one a year or two ago about homeopathy, where I had a similar problem, that the number of water molecules was just too large for the electomagnetic effects to transfer across. That's a simple mathematical gripe.

Again, this is not a mathematical gripe. Math is very very difficult to disagree with, you know. The disagreement is not about the number of water molecules, but about the premise that electromagnetic effects are limited by the number of water molecules. This premise is not a mathematical one, but an experimental one.

Quote:
I don't think you "don't have the ability" I think you "avoid the topic" because it's easier to make an emotional argument than to make a scientific proof.

In all the cases you have mentioned, there IS no scientific proof. How can you fault me for not making a scientific case when there is no scientific proof? Duh!

Quote:
I don't think you're dumb, and I think that you often bring concerns which are valid, like the radiation from cell phones,

Geez, how generous of you. After the insults you've hurled at me, you can keep your spare change, really.

Quote:
but you fall back on some quasi-mystical sources, and a very defensive position, rather than making the case.

I have no case to make. My arguments are entirely to defend the POSSIBILITY of the phenomena in question, to defend a position of open-mindedness. It is like being agnostic. When arguing with an atheist, you are not making a case for theism, but you want to defend that possiblity. So yes, entirely defensive, while not making a case. You want to call that quasi-mystical, whatever. I do it because I see open-mindedness as the underlying foundation of science.

Quote:
It's really insulting.

DT: My arguments make more sense because I am better at math than you.
CTS: You think you're better at math than me?
DT: I never said that. I am insulted that you think I said I am better at math than you.

OK, whatever. Be insulted, but you bring it on yourself.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:03 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

" Well, every time we go into a new topic I get this "oh, there goes DT thinking he knows about this subject as well." WTF? Surely everyone you know in real life knows as much about all of these topics as I do. If it were not so, how would you ever be able to converse in the real world with anyone? So, why am I getting bumped down to this inferior position where my opinion is only valid in certain subjects?"

Hello Dream,

I think you fall into the trap of making assumptions here, and again unintentionally insulting your audience.

Most people are not Polymaths, and few claim to be. You will note that not many here will claim to have extensive learning or expertise on a broad range of topics. It is considered unusual for a single person to be able to discuss a plethora of subjects knowledgeably.

Most people have a very, very basic understanding of a broad range of topics. Note that when I say basic, I mean "In 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue" or "Paul Revere ran around telling people the British were coming" level of basic. This may be via public school education or recreational reading in technical journals or history essays or newspaper articles.

These same people have a few topics with which they have personal experience. Perhaps through a job they have held. Hands-on experience in a particular field grants a high level of confidence in field related data.

A few may have studied a narrow field as a hobbyist. Note that retention of data is higher in these cases, and the detail of knowledge is greater. One always retains data better if they have an avid interest in the subject matter. However, most hobbyists will still acknowledge that they are not experts. A few rare hobbyists are held in acclaim by their own communities to the point where they acquire expert status in those communities, and these probably justifiably consider themselves experts in a field.

A limited number of people will have actual college-level or technical school experience with a narrow field of subjects, having been certified by a recognized authority as having professional expertise in a topic. Having an institution of learning backing their claims, they often consider themselves experts on a topic or field of endeavor. Time and experience often combines book-confidence with job-experience confidence, for those that actually hold jobs in the field.

However, despite the vast majority of people having very shallow knowledge of most topics, they still enjoy conversation. What they do not usually do is claim great expertise or certainty on subjects where they do not have extensive learning or personal experience.

I think what surprises many here, Dream, is that you speak on a vast quantity of topics as though you have expertise, and speak as though surprised that everyone does not share your insights and certainties on these topics.

Some in your audience may even express repugnance and disbelief that a person could actually hold valid confidence on such a broad spectrum of subject matter.

I myself have come to the conclusion that you fall into one of two categories.

A) You are a renaissance man/woman who actually does hold an incredible virtues of knowledge and skill on a vast array of topics, and speak to these topics with the authority that such knowledge grants you.

B) You are just like the rest of us, but do not hold to our social conventions. Hence, while your knowledge is no more certain than ours, you express that knowledge with the confidence of an expert.

I confess that I have no idea which of these is true. I can only say that I have never spoken with you on a topic where you did not exude uncanny confidence in your expression of the subject matter.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:14 AM

CTS,

If you set up your experiment right, you can prove anything. Drug companies do this all the time to get FDA approval.

I did not say I was better at math. I'm not particularly good at math. I said you were avoiding math, I think you're avoiding it for the same reason Sig does, (and I'm really quite sure Sig is better at math than me): You're avoiding it because math is unforgiving, and in math you can lose.

I wasn't the hurler of insults, I was distinctly the hurlee.

It would be absurd to assume you don't know math, everyone knows this much math. It's really *NOT* about math skills. It's about intentionally strategically positioning yourself so that it is impossible for you to lose.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:59 AM

Anthony

I'll defer somewhat to you on this because you're much better with people than I am, so I hope you'll forgive some nitpicking.

Quote:
It is considered unusual for a single person to be able to discuss a plethora of subjects knowledgeably.

Yet that's exactly what we do here on the board. I happen to think some people are weak on some subjects, as am I, for instance when you and Frem start talking about security and military matters; but I think that most people here approach most topics with confidence.

Quote:
Most people have a very, very basic understanding of a broad range of topics.

Sure, but people here aren't most people. Also, people I know in real life, okay, maybe I've selected them out somewhat, but I expect them to be pretty confident aout a fair range of topics. If we're talking about the problems in Somalia, for example, I assume they know more than "Isn't that somewhere in Africa?" I would like them to assume this of me, rather than act surprised, or worse yet, as has happened a number of times, rant against me for my impertinence that I dare discuss the topic without actually having been to Africa, which I confess, I have not.

Quote:
These same people have a few topics with which they have personal experience.

sure, but we've probably all had a wide range of jobs, and in those jobs, we've undoubtedly had the experience of thinking "that person is a isn't a great teacher" but then that same person could use that experience as a trump card in a discussion to say "i'm the teacher, ergo, i know education." I use teacher because I assume that's a job most people here have had.

Quote:
A few may have studied a narrow field as a hobbyist.

And in some of these areas I shut up and listen, because I'm so far behind, when it comes to the study of aircraft, for example. Sure, I'm not completely ignorant, but I don't have a lot to contribute, and no one wants to hear me voice my opinions on how to get the maximum lift in a flying wing constuction. Still, I don't think that means I should avoid the topic, in case I have a fairly obvious idea like "Don't you think the casualty rate is connected to the speed with which aircraft come in contact with the ground, or the large volume of highly explosive fuel they're carrying?"

Quote:
A limited number of people will have actual college-level or technical school experience with a narrow field of subjects, having been certified by a recognized authority as having professional expertise in a topic.

I am afraid the concept is anachronistic, and perhaps creates some of this response. I'm fairly familiar with, for instance, psychiatrists, as I've had a couple dozen of them. Maybe two or three had a decent understanding of the field, but all held terminal degrees in it. I'm pretty familiar with the field, which is how I can tell. My background for that is some premed undergrad and same grad biotech, but most of what I know I got from reading stuff online, in particular, thousands and thousands of FDA submissions for psychotropic drugs, and the underlying research behind them. Sure, many many people out there have a lot better understanding than myself, but I'm not automatically going to cave to someone, esp. on credentials.

Quote:
Having an institution of learning backing their claims, they often consider themselves experts on a topic or field of endeavor.

Sure.

Quote:
However, despite the vast majority of people having very shallow knowledge of most topics, they still enjoy conversation.

I assume they want to partake in the conversation.

Quote:
I think what surprises many here, Dream, is that you speak on a vast quantity of topics as though you have expertise, and speak as though surprised that everyone does not share your insights and certainties on these topics.

I think many people here do the same, but don't get shouted down for it. That's how come I feel put upon. I don't think "expertise" is the word I would use, but confidence. I think that most people here probably have a decent level of confidence in most topics. At least, many speak with a lot of certainty about everything :) But seriously, I assume they have a decent understanding. When you get into technical aspects, there are relatively few. Still, experience isn't everything: I'm a novice sailor and I'm never flown, but I've driven for many years and done a fair number of mechanical repairs myself; however, I this topic I fairly readily defer to Mike who knows far more about cars than I could hope to.

A lot of times the subjects in question are ones of great concern to me, for instance, the mind, the body, cancer, disease, etc. These are somewhat essential to survival, of me and those that I care about, so I've put many thousands of hours into each of them. I know not everyone does this, usually due to scheduling jobs and lives, they don't find the time, but for me it's a priority in my overall perspective, which is perhaps fairly taoist of me, but still, that would be why I'm familiar with the topics.

Quote:
Some in your audience may even express repugnance and disbelief that a person could actually hold valid confidence on such a broad spectrum of subject matter.

Do they, or is it just at me that they express this? (And maybe PN, but not with the same dismissive quality. After all, John has frequently posted with authority on almost all topics, and the reaction is just to his anti-semitism, not to his qualification to speak on the subject.)

Quote:
I confess that I have no idea which of these is true. I can only say that I have never spoken with you on a topic where you did not exude uncanny confidence in your expression of the subject matter.

I assume everyone is fairly well versed in all or almost all areas, but if you want to see me exhibit no confidence, start a thread about security. I worked as a rentacop once, my first job. Somehow I don't think that gives me a foothold on the subject.

But if you are going to get through this life you are going to need to do everything with a fair amount of confidence, or you will find yourself in debt to everyone for everything they do for you, that you would need them to do for you in order to live.

Sure, there are many people who don't know how to do plumbing, electrical work, or roofing on their house. These are not difficult things to do, but we all need them, and learning to do them is the investment of maybe a couple hundred hours. No exceptional abilities are required, just the input of time and energy.

I assume everyone would accept the above without problem (bearing in mind exceptions for the disabled) and moving on. Ergo, those that don't are those that never input the time (probably largely they didn't have the time, they were overscheduled on some 80 hour a week job.) Or perhaps they never had the interest.

But then, everyone has to live in a house. Suddenly they will find themselves at many thousands of dollars disadvantage for not having the skill, no? Yet, in order to pay the roofer, plumber and electrician, they will then spend far more time working then they would have to spend acquiring the skill.

The same would be true of anything that is truly essential for life (I'm just winging it here, but this is how I got to my world view, given almost no direction at all, other than my mom, it's quite possible that I have come to some very different conclusions than those who had more input, I can't say) Anyway, the same logically applies to medicine, does it not? How am I going to deal with being sick? Life long I had no money, no insurance, and really, very seldom is a doctor actually going to devote time to anyone's medical problems, how can he? He has 20,000 patients to see. Ergo, it's up to me and you to find answers to medical problems you and I have. It's bound to exceed the input of 6 minutes of a physicians time no matter how many times smarter than us he is.

I find it curious how much of a curiosity I appear to be. Admittedly, I haven't spent a lot of time in cities socializing with mainstream folk, but I thought all of this was somewhat of an outgrowth of just general self reliance. I have no doubt that CTS is very much of this vein, as is Frem, and several others here. I might disagree with them at times on conclusions, but not on their right to have them. For instance, in between the homeopathy argument and this one on cell phones, I had an argument with CTS on vaccines, which I lost, and now I have serious doubts about vaccines, and whether I would want my kids to have them, when I have them. I'm glad I lost this argument, because before it, I probably would have just lined my hypothetical kids up for a serious of injections, some of which might help, but some of which might do serious harm.

I think overall I like to go in with confidence and incompetence, amongst knowledgeable peers and come out smarter rather than victorious.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You're avoiding it because math is unforgiving, and in math you can lose.

I am not avoiding it. I don't use it when it doesn't apply to the arguments I am making.

If I were an agnostic arguing with an atheist, and I want to defend someone else's right to believe in God as well as the possibility that God may exist, math would not enter the argument. Math has nothing to do with inherent right to freedom (values and philosophy), nor is math able to prove the possibility of God's existence (there is not enough math in the world that can tackle that question, let alone answer it).

The atheist may say, "You're avoiding math in your arguments, so that I can't prove you wrong mathematically."

The atheist would be wrong. And that kind of statement demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the debate.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you set up your experiment right, you can prove anything.

An experiment cannot prove anything. No experiment proves anything. (And no scientist worth his/her salt would ever claim that an experiment proved something.)

Experiments can support or reject a hypothesis. But no experiment is perfect, no matter how well the experiment is designed. Every experiment has confounders. Every. Single. One.

Scientific "proof" comes from a large body of research of many, many experiments by many, many researchers. It comes from countless experiments yielding results that support a particular hypothesis, which evolves into a theory that is able to explain MOST observations. Even then, there are always anomalies that the prevailing theory/model cannot explain.

If you think one well-designed experiment can provide "proof," you've been reading too much Big Pharma propaganda passing itself off as "scientific" research.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:31 AM

Yes to teaching maths in a different way, not sure about dropping it all together.

The Steiner Waldorf has some interesting approached to teaching the R's in early years. Basically, they don't, not in the formalised way that happens in most mainstream schools. Early years is about experiential, play based learning and learning from daily life. A lot of it is based upon developmental understanding of children and the fact that abstract concepts are not able to be easily managed until late primary years. So you are kind of wasting your time teaching traditional maths too early.

http://www.steiner-australia.org/other/overview.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:40 AM

CTS,

I basically agree with everything you just posted, but you can see where the first one, when applied to science, is still going to seem religious in its approach.

The reason I was actually dragging out this dead cat of the math-free science to beat it up was that it has become endemic to arguments, here and elsewhere, and I think it's bad for science, and bad for people. We need not only experimental verification, but a logical manner to get from A to B, which can also, hopefully, be demonstrated. This is a step that big pharma skips in its analysis, which makes many of their claims really lack any kind of credibility (you end up with things like an actual report for a proposed drug I read exclaimed proudly that their drug "cures schizophrenia" by "lower the adrenalin production levels" and one of the cross examining researchers found, after approval, that "yes, it does, by killing off any cell in the body that makes adrenalin."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:41 AM

Right, back on topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't understand why math has to develop so slowly, and focus on such boring crap for so many years.

...[from excerpt]There is surely no more reliable way to kill enthusiasm and interest in a subject than to make it a mandatory part of the school curriculum. Include it as a major component of standardized testing and you virtually guarantee that the education establishment will suck the life out of it. School boards do not understand what math is, neither do educators, textbook authors, publishing companies, and sadly, neither do most of our math teachers. The scope of the problem is so enormous, I hardly know where to begin.

THAT is the main point I take away from the article I posted. Thank you for the fine elaboration from your excerpt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yes to teaching maths in a different way, not sure about dropping it all together.

Exactly what I was thinking.

I am not eager to hail Benezet as a genius and drop formal arithmetic in schools everywhere, like the author of this article. I think Benezet highlighted an important fail in our math pedagogy, but there are more than one ways to fix it. Furthermore, I am certain different kids need different fixes.

Dropping arithmetic is one possible fix. But I am not sure it is the best one. I would like to see other methods explored, and eventually, all different methods available for consumer choice.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:53 AM

Another approach which is gaining favour in schools here is the developmental curriculum, which has a more mainstream flavour than Steiner/Waldorf but similar principles. Maths and literacy are taught with context, not as abstractions.

http://www.pakenhamhillsps.vic.edu.au/image/ak5h/Developmental_Curricu
lum_Information.pdf

I know my son's school has adopted this. A bit too late for him now as he didn't get the benefits from it in early years, it would have been fantastic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I basically agree with everything you just posted, but you can see where the first one, when applied to science, is still going to seem religious in its approach.

I don't know which "first one" it is that you're talking about.

Quote:
...this dead cat of the math-free science to beat it up was that it has become endemic to arguments, here and elsewhere, and I think it's bad for science, and bad for people. We need not only experimental verification, but a logical manner to get from A to B, which can also, hopefully, be demonstrated.

First, there is no math-free science. All science depends on statistics.

BUT, assuming the stats are on the up-and-up (which, depending on how cynical you are, is ironical to say the least), math plays vastly different roles in different sciences.

Math is an integral part of physics, which is often conceptualized as applied math. In the field of radio propagation, for example, there is almost nothing but math.

However, math is not nearly as important in bioelectromagnetics, when you talk about how radio waves interact with living tissue. This field is largely experimental, with much less math involved. Yes, you need to know things like radio frequencies in Hz, or power density of radiation in microwatts/cm2, amongst others. But that is easily calculated or given. What you want to know is the specific absorption rate (SAR), which is the amount of energy absorbed by living tissue. This varies depending on the type of tissue, the age of the tissue, the species, etc. How do you figure out how it varies?

Experimentation. Computer modeling. Empirical evidence.

How much radiation is emitted from a cell tower is a math question. How much radiation is absorbed by the livestock and people living near the cell tower is an experimental question, not a mathematical one. What happens after the radiation is absorbed is an experimental question, not a mathematical one.

But really, this should go on the Cell Tower thread.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Still, if I look at the board, I would put math and logic right at the top of things that people need to learn. Basically all of my disagreements with your own scientific arguments and those that you post, for example, come down to math - as do about half of my problems with science posted on the board from most of the people here - and I think of us as being a fairly scientifically inclined group.

Basically a lot of our disagreements have been because you state opinion and supposition as facts.

su

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:17 AM

One thing to do is stop the automatic educational pacecar and have self-paced education. It doesn't really matter where someone grasps key concepts as long as they have them before graduation, or before the material for which they may be absolute prerequisites shows up. Problem is, if someone doesn't get something, and is staying back to finish it, they miss the next thing, and if they skip the first thing, they lose it, and everything that is dependent on it. It's just not a smart way to run.

Equally damaging in our current system, or perhaps more so, is the "fear of learning" or "fear of X subject" syndrome we create. There's a whole level of hostility that the subject to the kids is approached with, and the punishment for not learning (or learning. I knew a lot of kids who purposefully failed things to lighten their workload.) Also, the thing about obeying and disobeying your elders, rather than about learning, interferes.

This isn't a really well constructed thought, but oh well.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I assume everyone is fairly well versed in all or almost all areas,"

Hello,

I know you do, Dream. I understand that this is how you think.

You think that you are well versed in all or almost all areas. I am not equipped to prove or disprove this.

You also think that others are (or should be) well versed in all or almost all areas.

I'm going to tell you that this is not the case. Even in a community of fairly intelligent people, this will not be the case. The people around you have shocking shortfalls of knowledge, and they move through their lives in a fog of ignorance about most things.

With incomplete experience about the world and the universe, they reach out and touch others around them, and describe to each other all the elephants they have felt.

Or, alternatively, I am the lone ignorant slob here, who knows a few limited subjects and is comparatively cognitively retarded and surrounded by geniuses of broad scope and staggering experience on virtually any topic imaginable.

However, I want you to consider the possibility that it's not just me, Dream. That we are not all experts on everything, or even nearly so. Also, that sometimes our imprecise language and way of approaching things may reflect not only our own limited experience, but also the limits of those around us.

Imagine that while we must have beliefs and convictions in order to live, we have based our beliefs and convictions on incomplete information.

You will have to imagine a world peopled by individuals vastly different than yourself. While I often strive to find the similarities between people, I want you to consider the differences, Dream.

Try to imagine that I am very different from the way you imagine me to be. Try to imagine that I am the way I describe myself. Try to further imagine what that means, in a holistic sense.

And then try to imagine what the best way to communicate with someone like that must be.

I don't think I can reach out to you any better than this:

Imagine that you are the only superhero in a room full of normal people. It doesn't matter how many cool powers you have. At some point, if you don't choose your social approach carefully, the mundanes in the room are going to get angry with you.

If you actually care about communicating, you're going to have to carefully consider how people feel when you choose your words and tone.

And remember that they are not necessarily like you.

This is only my opinion, of course. I may very well be the only idiot in the room.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
One thing to do is stop the automatic educational pacecar and have self-paced education. It doesn't really matter where someone grasps key concepts as long as they have them before graduation, or before the material for which they may be absolute prerequisites shows up. Problem is, if someone doesn't get something, and is staying back to finish it, they miss the next thing, and if they skip the first thing, they lose it, and everything that is dependent on it. It's just not a smart way to run.

Equally damaging in our current system, or perhaps more so, is the "fear of learning" or "fear of X subject" syndrome we create. There's a whole level of hostility that the subject to the kids is approached with, and the punishment for not learning (or learning. I knew a lot of kids who purposefully failed things to lighten their workload.) Also, the thing about obeying and disobeying your elders, rather than about learning, interferes.

This isn't a really well constructed thought, but oh well.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Hello,

I am not entirely convinced that I could pass modern classes in school. I had a hard enough time putting up with the senseless busywork when I went to school a couple of decades ago.

It has only gotten worse since then. The pretense of teaching kids hungry to learn has largely been abandoned, in my opinion. Now it seems that the object is to stuff them full of selected pieces of information so that they can regurgitate them on testing day.

The system doesn't reward curiosity or inquisitiveness. It does not encourage ambition to learn or self-directed inquiry.

I have no idea what we are churning out nowadays from the sausage factory (forgive me this metaphor) but I find it to be a dismaying process.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I am not entirely convinced that I could pass modern classes in school. I had a hard enough time putting up with the senseless busywork when I went to school a couple of decades ago.

It has only gotten worse since then. The pretense of teaching kids hungry to learn has largely been abandoned, in my opinion. Now it seems that the object is to stuff them full of selected pieces of information so that they can regurgitate them on testing day.

The system doesn't reward curiosity or inquisitiveness. It does not encourage ambition to learn or self-directed inquiry.

I have no idea what we are churning out nowadays from the sausage factory (forgive me this metaphor) but I find it to be a dismaying process.

--Anthony

I am pretty sure I would not manage school any better than I managed it first time around, which was to distract myself to keep sane, and keep my head down. I managed to look interested and engage enough to not attract attention (mostly), whilst my brain was busy elsewhere in fantasyland.

My big revelation came in the last two years of school when the teachers decided to treat us like human beings, and when I had narrowed our subject base to things that did not leave me open to humiliating failure and I was interested in.

I have had much more pleasurable and enlightened experiences of further education.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Even in a community of fairly intelligent people, this will not be the case. The people around you have shocking shortfalls of knowledge, and they move through their lives in a fog of ignorance about most things.

:( I could be wrong, but would we be better off accepting that? I mean, given the option to assume wisdom or ignorance among the general population, don't you think either assumption would become a self fulfilling prophecy? And given that, isn't it safer to assume wisdom?

Quote:
Or, alternatively, I am the lone ignorant slob here

Nah, you're just the person with the most humility.

Quote:
Imagine that while we must have beliefs and convictions in order to live, we have based our beliefs and convictions on incomplete information.

Sure, but we're talking about the background information everyone has. I mean, I've changed my positions on many things many times here, even recently.

Quote:

Try to imagine that I am very different from the way you imagine me to be.

I imagine you as an ascetic monk. I will now imagine you as very different.

Not sure to what to do with that mental image.

Quote:
And then try to imagine what the best way to communicate with someone like that must be.

I suppose it has the line in it somewhere that says something like "Are you going to finish that?"

Quote:

If you actually care about communicating, you're going to have to carefully consider how people feel when you choose your words and tone.

I'm not good with people. I do better with machines.

Quote:

This is only my opinion, of course. I may very well be the only idiot in the room.

Yet I feel quite sure that you and many other people here are a great deal smarter than I am, and their rejection of my right to communicate on a topic is a dis directed at me. Perhaps this comes from a bias against me as being admittedly uncivilized, or perhaps it is as you say, my failure or lacking in communications skills.

I know it's not my amazing superpowers. I know that something is up. I see people pass up not just my opinion but the opinions of some other folks on the board in favor of others who claim more expertise in a given field. I feel irked when it happens, regardless over whether I am the one being ignored here, because, while I don't know everything about topics discussed, or even as much as others here, I feel I know enough to be able to tell when someone is very well versed and when they are not. I'm trying to avoid specifics, to avoid more fights, but let me make up an example. Say someone were to ask a question about cars, but to pose that question to me, who knows nothing of cars, and ignore the input from Mike. This is the sort of thing I see happen all the time, and I suspect it is actually neither of the scenarios where the other person either has supreme knowledge or that asker is an idiot, but rather that the person being ignored is being ignored for social reasons, and not necessarily becaused they've scared the fish away as you suggest, though that's possible, but it's also, because I see this happen, that some people have asserted themselves as experts on the subject, and that authority has been granted by others, who have accepted the alpha dominance of a sage in a particular field, which others have been rejected for consideration, which speaks to a far deeper and more complex level of social skill.

Ironically, a lot of this perspective I get from watching my dad, who very successfully asserts his position as an authority which others accept, something which I cannot do at all. Neither am I trying to. But I feel like I am bumped into a category of "ignorant" not because I've demonstrated inferior understanding, but for some other social reason beyond my comprehension, which perhaps in part is why I feel the need to assert myself in any discussion as being competent so that I may be allowed to take part in the conversation, and not be bumped into a category of ignorance.

ETA: For instance, presently, where my math skills are not particularly good, and my teaching skills are also something I'm not real confident about. I taught for five years, and what I came up with I explained to Frem, and he sent me a link to the Sudbury page which already had basically everything I'd come up with, so I guess I'm not that sharp on the subject, but I still feel I have the basic competence on which to discuss the topic.

Also, re: magon's point. I got this from Orwell, but if I have written it, then it comprises my thoughts, and adding "i think" adds a level of tentative pondering that is not always applicable to things I am fairly sure of. The style of simple stating my opinons without window dressing was not original, but something which I borrowed from him, and perhaps I did not do it well, or maybe shouldn't do it at all, but I'm not sure yet why.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I may very well be the only idiot in the room.

LOL. If you're an idiot, then I drool uncontrollably and am incontinent.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:29 AM

Anthony, Magon

At first, I quite enjoyed college, not having been to school since the 5th grade. After a while though, it became rather tiresome. Most of the professors at my state school viewed the students as some sort of fungal growth on their classroom wall, and most of the students viewed the classes as a chore they had to get through on the way to their next keg party.

I can't speak to how difficult school would be not having been through it a first time, but I hazard it would be socially far more difficult. How does one become quarterback or prom queen? and if one doesn't become one, then how will the social pressure crush one's life? And if one does, how does one deal with the pressures of parents and teachers to perform?

CTS:

Ew.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:33 AM

I am pretty much in agreement with you Anthony. Most people know a smattering of stuff on a wide range of issues. They may have once watched a documentary, or does some light reading, or had a conversation or two. Newpapers and televised news give a superficial, often wildly biased, sometimes wholly inaccurate picture of current events. Nevertheless, most people rely on these sources for the breadth of their knowledge.

Conversly, most people will have at least one area of expertise. It may be something theoretical, to do with their career, or they may have recieved extensive training and education in that area or it may be practical, they may be able to fix or build things, or it may be creative, artistic, musical etc etc. That is, most of us have areas of knowledge that we feel comfortable in discussing.

Some people will have what I consider to be a very deep knowledge of something. That is, they have spent their life devoted to that subject/skill. They have studied it, worked in the field, read widely on it, maybe written on, taught it. They eat, sleep and breathe that topic and know it inside out and upside down. These people are pretty rare, in my view.

Some people are, as you named it, renaissance type characters, they have multiple areas of expertise and have a broad range of indepth knowledge on a number of issues. These people are also pretty rare. In my experience, these people appear to have a number of qualities. They would be, by any definition, gifted in at least one area ie maths, music, language. They are continiously curious. They seek out and lap up new ideas or constantly strive to develop new skills ie learn a new language, new musical instrument. They read widely and comprehensively on many subjects. They seek out new experiences. They embrace learning and often have multiple qualifications in different areas. I might add that even these people will have limits to their knowledge, and if you speak to them about something they know little about, they will immediately rush off to obtain more information and knowledge.

I think it is important to know the difference between these types of knowledge, and ackowledge where you fit in with regard to any particular topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am not entirely convinced that I could pass modern classes in school. I had a hard enough time putting up with the senseless busywork when I went to school a couple of decades ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I am pretty sure I would not manage school any better than I managed it first time around, which was to distract myself to keep sane, and keep my head down.

I was a teacher's pet and nerd student par excellence. I was Tracy Flick, minus the extracurricular overachievement.

Now that I understand how grossly abnormal that is, thinking about it makes me vomit a little in my mouth.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTS:

Ew.

I know, right?

Here's to hoping Anthony's not an idiot. ;)

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I was Tracy Flick, minus the extracurricular overachievement.

Does it help, or hurt? The extra attention that is.

Quote:
Magon

eat, sleep and breathe that topic

But life forces you to eat sleep and breathe one topic after another, and if you don't, then evolution selects you for extinction, does it not? I mean, I"m fairly sure that's true of CTS and Frem at least, so it's not just me. I think this is how we learn.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
Magon

eat, sleep and breathe that topic

But life forces you to eat sleep and breathe one topic after another, and if you don't, then evolution selects you for extinction, does it not? I mean, I"m fairly sure that's true of CTS and Frem at least, so it's not just me. I think this is how we learn.

You've taken my quote out of context and missed the point. If you move from interest to interest, topic to topic, then you are not devoting your life to one field/skill. You may have lots of knowledge on different things, but perhaps you might concede that you wouldn't be as expert to someone who devoted their life to something. Somewhere i read it takes 1000 hours of practise or study to completely master one skill/unit of knowledge. That means if you read up on one topic an hour a day it would take around 3 years to be proficient in it. Not an exact science, as you could read bullshit for three years, but it is worth thinking about what goes into aquiring knowledge.

Re the evolution stuff, I'd have to disagree. Nature requires that we live long enough to reproduce and that our offspring live long enough to reproduce etc etc.

And I offer you this, the difference between someone who is clever and someone who is wise is that the clever person is proud of what they have learned and the wise person feels like they have learned very little of all there is to know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:29 PM

Magon,

I mean that you immerse yourself in a field for a year to a few years because you must, because life thrusts that on you, and then, later, it's something else, but that experience stays with you. After a while, they pile up.

Quote:

Re the evolution stuff, I'd have to disagree. Nature requires that we live long enough to reproduce and that our offspring live long enough to reproduce etc etc.

I disagree. That would make us *a* species, but it wouldn't make us this one. Evolutionary pressure removes the weak, or in this case, the dumb, which is what makes the human brain four times the size of its ape competitor. As soon as you remove that pressure, we start to devolve.

Quote:

And I offer you this, the difference between someone who is clever and someone who is wise is that the clever person is proud of what they have learned and the wise person feels like they have learned very little of all there is to know.

I'll grant those are a couple of types of people, but I don't care for the definitions or monikers.

I think clever people figure things out, when not given all the information. Wise people have lived through things and know a thing or two. I think all people possess these characteristics in some degree or other. Also, it is necessary to have both, as wise is tested and proven, but immutable, whereas clever is chance, challenge and ever changing.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"As soon as you remove that pressure, we start to devolve."

Hello,

I don't know much about evolution, but I don't think it works that way. The intelligence would have to pose a problem to survival and reproduction in order for it to be selected against.

Meanwhile, being dumb may not be enough of a hinderance to survival and reproduction to be selected against, either.

So with survival pressures removed, one might expect stagnation over 'devolving.' The human race could conceivably just remain the same, full of smart people, dumbasses, and everything in between. It could stay that way for millenia until being either dumb or smart becomes a major factor in survival and reproduction.

In my opinion.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I mean that you immerse yourself in a field for a year to a few years because you must, because life thrusts that on you, and then, later, it's something else, but that experience stays with you. After a while, they pile up.

So you really appear not to understand what I am saying. I don't disagree with the above, but I am trying to differentiate levels of knowledge. Ah well, time to move on.

Quote:

I disagree. That would make us *a* species, but it wouldn't make us this one. Evolutionary pressure removes the weak, or in this case, the dumb, which is what makes the human brain four times the size of its ape competitor. As soon as you remove that pressure, we start to devolve.

There is really no evidence that dumbness has or is being removed from the gene pool. Possibly quite the contrary.

Quote:
I think clever people figure things out, when not given all the information. Wise people have lived through things and know a thing or two. I think all people possess these characteristics in some degree or other. Also, it is necessary to have both, as wise is tested and proven, but immutable, whereas clever is chance, challenge and ever changing.

I know of people who are neither wise nor particularly clever. They appear to manage with out either quality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:47 PM

There's already been a general murmur to the effect that we are not as smart as cave men, being about 100ccs on average smaller brained.

The brain uses 22 times as much energy as other tissues, and there's a brain to bodyweight balance ratio out there, I forget what it's called, that would predict a human brain size of around 400ccs. Without any pressure, species tend to return to this energy balance.

Some species are under incredible pressure, like small birds and rodents. Norther chickadees are about 10% brain and some species of mice are

ETA2: I can't find giant brain mouse ATM, so I have to scale back to 10% for smart mice. I'll try to find the link. Mice vary a lot by species. Family average is around 3%, and Genus, but some species are 10%+

Remove that evolutionary pressure, like with southern chickadees, and the brain mass falls. I guess this just means civilization is making us dumber ;)

I didn't really have any thoughts about this, just babbling. I don't know what would happen to humans. I think that our idiotic tendency to try to limit our own gene pool will have a much more detrimental effect on our intelligence than devolution.

ETA3:

ETA:

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Does it help, or hurt? The extra attention that is.

Well, I guess that wasn't a perfect metaphor. I wasn't Tracy Flick for the attention, like her. I did it cause I was a driven perfectionist. I was also too socially inept to know that driven perfectionism made me as annoying as Tracy Flick.

But yes, the little attention I did get from teachers was helpful. Didn't hurt. Eventually, the negative attention I received from peers was hurtful, but by the time I realized that, I was out of high school.

Then I made sure to party a lot in college and grad school. :)

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 10:50 AM

We're now debating gifted and talented programs. I'm of a mixed mind on them. Does having them in the classroom help the other kids, or does it hurt the class? Will the teacher to teach to them ignoring everyone else?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We're now debating gifted and talented programs. I'm of a mixed mind on them. Does having them in the classroom help the other kids, or does it hurt the class? Will the teacher to teach to them ignoring everyone else?

Have no direct experience with them, so can't say.

I have heard high praises for acceleration (skipping grades) and even higher praises for gifted schools (where everyone is gifted).

Personally, I think homeschooling a gifted child, or a slower child, is the way to go.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 5:11 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I never fancied maths myself, but I'm glad I was made to learn them even though it wasn't fun.

I think the problem DT runs into in communication is that he says one thing and then his energy does another. He says he's humbly trying to learn and yet his energy comes across as someone who thinks he knows it all, its this discinance in his presentation and his stated position that causes confusion and sometimes annoyance for others. Plus he uses certain buzz words/phrases that are a turn off to those reading in the sense that those reading see them as exaggeration or inaccurate to what they know to be the case so they start tuning out, even though DT has plenty of relevent things to say about various topics. More about what these buzz words are later, I expect others can point them out as well as I can.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 5:59 PM