Better Learning Methods?

From: http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/ ... -touch-dna

Erica Fuchs wrote: When people invest themselves in a belief, it can be easier to ignore evidence that conflicts or challenges that belief. Admitting that non-intimate skin cell DNA transfer is a reasonable explanation for the DNA evidence in Daniel's case may make a lot of people in the media question (and everywhere else) their assumptions and actions.

Many people do this. It is too easy to accept something, and then ignore evidence that contradicts that theory. Awareness of this difficulty explains the details of my signature, which is a reminder to myself as well as others


With so much knowledge, only sampling works. What is important is also sample the works of people who disagree with your theories. It was commented that science doesn't have axioms - I learned about axioms from Euclidian geometry, more basically, the science axioms are: there is a universe, and it is reasonable. These I accept totally

snip
This is due, not primarily to the teachers, but to the government and administrative requirements imposed upon the teachers to meet created standards so that their efforts can be quantified. That said, it is a required part of learning that you be tested on what you know. Without testing, something we go through daily in all facets of our lives if we realize it or not, you have no way to judge your retention and learning.
snip
If we had unlimited funding for education and could tailor each child's education to their abilities, skills and interests while letting them actively pursue only basic skills than we could let children learn in this fashion. However, we are required to learn the basics, each step building on itself. You do not show a child chaos mathematics and expect him to build a space shuttle at first glance.
snip
If we had unlimited funding for education and could tailor each child's education to their abilities, skills and interests while letting them actively pursue only basic skills than we could let children learn in this fashion. However, we are required to learn the basics, each step building on itself. You do not show a child chaos mathematics and expect him to build a space shuttle at first glance.

In college the Thermodynamics teacher annoyed us with weekly tests. I also remember the week when most of us didn't get the lessons. He repeated that week's lessons using a different aspect.

From: "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman

In a more careful use of the terms, not all "schooling" is "education" and not all "education" is "schooling."

Part of the problem is entrenched big shots. Most NEA leaders oppose charter schools, firing of poor teachers, and school vouchers. There is nothing new about this.

Friedman also notes that Hippocrates taught anyone interested who would pay his fees, but the Hippocratic oath, a couple of decades after his death, in addition to high sounding ideas, includes phrases promising to teach ONLY approved (apprentices, etc) people, thus reducing competition. Recently, a paramedic commented that the early intervention they do saves lives, but sometimes it is hard to convince the medical authorities they are worth it. 2500 years and still counting

'Schooling', 'education', and 'learning' are not interchangeable terms.
--------------
If you want to learn, the worst schools and teachers in the world can't stop you. If you don't want to learn, the best can't help you.

Milton Friedman the total delusional. Hired by the government in the beginning of The Great Depression (the biggest failure of the free market)He took all of his government salary and in the face of reality preached against government interference in the market. And proved that there are in fact 4 kinds of lies, not 3: Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Mathematical models.

Imaginos1892 wrote:'Schooling', 'education', and 'learning' are not interchangeable terms.
--------------
If you want to learn, the worst schools and teachers in the world can't stop you. If you don't want to learn, the best can't help you.

Very true, assuming you have access to data and information. Three cheers for WWW. You also need to refuse to be certain. Someone who knows it all seldom learns how much he doesn't know.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Milton Friedman the total delusional. Hired by the government in the beginning of The Great Depression (the biggest failure of the free market)He took all of his government salary and in the face of reality preached against government interference in the market. And proved that there are in fact 4 kinds of lies, not 3: Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Mathematical models.

IIRC, we have had depressions and recessions throughout history. The question is why the one in the 30s lasted so long. There are many theories, such as Harry Dent's emphasis on cycles and demographics.

From: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Hoov ... icies.html

When it was all over, I once made a list of New Deal ventures begun during Hoover’s years as Secretary of Commerce and then as president. . . . The New Deal owed much to what he had begun.1 —FDR advisor Rexford G. Tugwell

Was the market really free

Many historians, most of the general public, and even many economists think of Herbert Hoover, the president who preceded Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a defender of laissez-faire economic policy. According to this view, Hoover’s dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. The reality is quite different. Far from being a bystander, Hoover actively intervened in the economy, advocating and implementing polices that were quite similar to those that Franklin Roosevelt later implemented. Moreover, many of Hoover's interventions, like those of his successor, caused the Great Depression to be “great”—that is, to last a long time.

I claim that theories need to be tested by high confidence evidence, and not just in the sciences. One statement made is that since the ten most liberal US states have lost population and employers, while the ten most conservative states have gained, this means people are voting with their feet. If so, there should be like patterns between different countries.
OTOH: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mi ... ates-blue/
shows that the reality is more complicated than the theory.

Isn't it always? Theories are mental maps, and the semantics people tell us the map is not the territory. In judging where to invest, I try to keep this FIRMLY in mind to prevent loud objections from my personal finance records.

The basic pattern I use is to study a theory by checking out the related part of reality. Since I can't see all of reality, since (as has been noted) people often filter evidence using biases and assumptions, since I thus have a dependence on sources that are not totally reliable, I'm sure to be wrong somewhere, probably in multiple cases. The fun comes in trying to find out just where: I study theories, but try to follow the policy of that scientist in Edward E. Smith's Subspace stories and discard theories when available data conflicts with them.

What is really strange today is no mention of PLATO:

PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations)[1][2] was the first generalized computer-assisted instruction system. Starting in 1960, it ran on the University of Illinois' ILLIAC I computer. By the late 1970s, it supported several thousand graphics terminals distributed worldwide, running on nearly a dozen different networked mainframe computers. Many modern concepts in multi-user computing were developed on PLATO, including forums, message boards, online testing, e-mail, chat rooms, picture languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing, and multiplayer games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

How powerful were most mainframes in 1985? How many had 32 gigabytes on line?

I think that either or educators can't figure out what to do with this technology or they are afraid of what it can do.

The issue is not how useful computerized education would be to students, it is how to make money off the system and it is a threat to PROFESSIONAL Educators.

They can't even create a National Recommended Reading List.

umbrarchist wrote:What is really strange today is no mention of PLATO:

PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations)[1][2] was the first generalized computer-assisted instruction system. Starting in 1960, it ran on the University of Illinois' ILLIAC I computer. By the late 1970s, it supported several thousand graphics terminals distributed worldwide, running on nearly a dozen different networked mainframe computers. Many modern concepts in multi-user computing were developed on PLATO, including forums, message boards, online testing, e-mail, chat rooms, picture languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing, and multiplayer games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

How powerful were most mainframes in 1985? How many had 32 gigabytes on line?

I think that either or educators can't figure out what to do with this technology or they are afraid of what it can do.

The issue is not how useful computerized education would be to students, it is how to make money off the system and it is a threat to PROFESSIONAL Educators.

They can't even create a National Recommended Reading List.

I really don´t know... The more i´ve seen education get computerised, the less educated people i see finishing school.

As an example, two of my cousins are teachers in two opposite sides of the computerised spectra, one teaches in a school that only uses computers where they absolutely must, the other in a school where every student is given a portable that is used everywhere.

In the "lowtech" school, they can easily afford an extra teacher per class on average instead, and they have consistently much better results in national tests...

I´m really not impressed.

Tenshinai wrote:

umbrarchist wrote:What is really strange today is no mention of PLATO:

"PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations)[1][2] was the first generalized computer-assisted instruction system. Starting in 1960, it ran on the University of Illinois' ILLIAC I computer. By the late 1970s, it supported several thousand graphics terminals distributed worldwide, running on nearly a dozen different networked mainframe computers. Many modern concepts in multi-user computing were developed on PLATO, including forums, message boards, online testing, e-mail, chat rooms, picture languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing, and multiplayer games./"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

How powerful were most mainframes in 1985? How many had 32 gigabytes on line?

I think that either or educators can't figure out what to do with this technology or they are afraid of what it can do.

The issue is not how useful computerized education would be to students, it is how to make money off the system and it is a threat to PROFESSIONAL Educators.

They can't even create a National Recommended Reading List.

I really don´t know... The more i´ve seen education get computerised, the less educated people i see finishing school.

As an example, two of my cousins are teachers in two opposite sides of the computerised spectra, one teaches in a school that only uses computers where they absolutely must, the other in a school where every student is given a portable that is used everywhere.

In the "lowtech" school, they can easily afford an extra teacher per class on average instead, and they have consistently much better results in national tests...

I´m really not impressed.

Good points. Given the progress of automation, it is likely that in the future there will be two types of work: 1) tending the machines (including programming, maintenance, and designing things for them to do); 2) work that machines can't do. Really excellent teachers should be in the second category. Q? How many machines would be able to replace one Socrates, Blaise Pascal, or Einstein? When some opportunities disappear, others appear.

The Luddites should have taught us that when things change, wanting the same old pattern doesn't work very well

Learning comes down to class size and interest. In Oxford 'class' size is very limited. My largest 'class' was seven typically 3-4 but sometimes I was the only student. You can't hide in a small class. Reading aloud is a good thing. Writing essay is also very good. In Oxford in 4.5 years I wrote 700 essays. Exams all had the same question. You have three hours write three essays on three topics you covered in class. Nobody ever left early. My rhythm was 17 pages in three hours.

By reading and writing you develop a very good memory.

Have Masters or PhD's as teachers. Exceptions exist but not too many.

Enjoy what you study.

If you can't control class size, hire a tutor.

If all else fails, Nootropics.

If you have to make speeches in public get a speech writer. I had okay speeches but my speech writer boosted everything up three notches.

Tenshinai wrote:I really don´t know... The more i´ve seen education get computerised, the less educated people i see finishing school.

I am inclined to agree but I do not think it is the fault of the hardware. As far as I can tell the educators select and create crappy software. They want stuff that keeps them in the loop while at the same time talking about how great the technology is for education.

I have watched high school students read about igneous rocks off a computer screen.

When PLATO was being designed no one was thinking of desktops and tablets as powerful as mainframes.