January 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
|
GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER in the 21ST CENTURY
Plumpy'Nut as an injection, allowing us to focus immediately on the constraint, while not ruling out discussing the core problem.
January 1, 2008
comments?
|
Millions of children around the world die each year from malnutrition. Those of us in developing countries likely find this not merely unacceptable, but also unbelievable. And this seemingly minor word deviation has, I believe, led to tragic consequences.
When circumstances are deemed "unacceptable", likely people have an idea of the circumstances. You lack health insurance and I, having it, can imagine your plight because I can imagine myself with no coverage. A feeling of panic comes over me, fearing an incident leaving me at the twin doors of financial and health ruin.
Malnutrition? This is a different thing altogether. I cannot imagine extreme hunger. Who can except those who experience it?
What happens when one attempts to solve a problem - with the best of intentions - but no idea of the underlying circumstances?
To solve hunger, you might provide a powered milk substance. What better way to get nutrition to parents and kids in need. Isn't that what you provide for kids in need in your own communities?
Of course, for powdered milk to work, it must be mixed with good water. We take this assumption for granted. Is this assumption valid in Africa? No.
Once prepared, it must be chilled to prevent spoilage. We make the assumption of proper chilling facilities for granted. Is this a valid assumption in Africa? No.
The immediate malnutrition need in Africa is a high-nutritious food that can be prepared anywhere by anyone, while lasting a long time. Such a food meets the immediate needs of the starving African children. Does such a food exist? Yes! PLUMPY'NUT!
Now, many argue nutritional aid does not solve the underlying problems facing the African continent. True. But does lasting change taking years to implement, take hold, and flourish have to be at odds with addressing the deaths of millions of kids annually? Can't both proceed simultaneously?
Indeed!
Somewhere, George Washington Carver is watching - and smiling!
|
|
AN UDE - OR NOT AN UDE: That is A Question
January 2, 2008
comments?
|
The gathering group of educators eagerly awaited the presentation on the current reality tree. After all, who doesn't relish the opportunity to gripe openly about problems - undesirable effects - in the system.
"The curriculum is too broad!", came the clarion call from Bill.
The session leader indifferently asked Bill to clarify what he meant. Bill did not take kindly to the tone, or the implication he had not been initially clear. He paused a moment, took a deep breath, and continued: "To prepare for tests, I've got my kids memorizing state capitals and mountain ranges. We memorize so much we don't have time to look deeply into subjects."
The crowd whispered in agreement. It was a common complaint. "Can we say 'The broad curriculum does not provide for deep study?", the moderator interjected.
"Fine", said Bill, accepting the modified wording clarified his thought, though it really had not. This is what he meant in the first place.
"Any others?"
"I think a broad curriculum is a GOOD thing!", came a voice from the back. She continued: "To me, 'deep study' means a student studies a subject to the neglect of other subjects. Aren't we always saying it's good to expose children to as many things as possible? Now it sounds like you're saying that's not good!"
The moderator paused, uncertain what to do. She had encountered instances where there was disagreement on specific wordings of sentences, but never a situation where one person believed something bad, while another simultaneously thought it good. What to do?
Should the statement be included on the UDE list, if there is disagreement on whether it is an UDE or not?
Does it matter?
|
|
THE PRIVATIZATION OF (LOGICAL) TREES
context: How should one analyze the work of another? Be careful when you say "I'm wrong".
January 3, 2008
comments?
|
|
|
Tragic Consequences of an Insufficient S&T Tree - and what do to about it
January 4, 2008
comments?
|
Modern Marvels recently showed a documentary on the
Eisenhower National Highway System, including the origins - Eisenhower
in Europe, and advisors reviewing the German autobahn. The USA at
the time had no national highway system. Why not model it after
the autobahn? One thing the US advisors noticed: curved roads. There was no need for that in the USA system. After all, isn't the shortest distance between two points a straight line? The system constructed, policy-makers realized the error of their ways immediately. Eye-fatigue from the monotony of the roads caused many accidents. The strategy and the tactic were present - but were they sufficient? Did the policy-makers RULE OUT any procedures? Did they consult the German makers on why the roads were curved? The HOW and the WHY are necessary - but in the above example they were present - and wrong. How could they have been corrected? Suppose we were to address the corresponding tactic of what not to do - and why? The modified S&T tree - the audible-ready tree - might read: In order to go from a system with no means of intranational travel to a national highway system, we need to build a highway system with curving roads. Because of driver / eye fatigue, we are going to avoid long stretches of straight roads. Of course, to know this about what not to do requires knowledge of the system - a good thing. Also, merely verbalizing the statements above leads to numerous operational needs - how long can a straight road be, for example. To summarize: A layer of the audible-ready tree: to go from the current system to a future system, we do this to achieve this, but in order to avoid this negative UDE, don't do this.
The sentence structure is fine, but how might this look using visual language?
Of course, this example - all examples of this sort - leads to an interesting dilemma. We're told it's bad to "reinvent the wheel"; stick with the tried-and-true. But suppose the curved autobahn was so curved due to terrain, and had nothing to do with driver fatigue. It's folly to replicate that system in an environment with different terrain, and it makes sense to "reinvent the wheel". What to do? "Reinvent the wheel" versus "Do not reinvent the wheel"? Observe the above structure includes the cloud, the requirements/pre-requisites, and the injection!
Here too, we see an interesting element of choice: it does not have to mean "compromise" and it does not have to mean an injection different from one of the initial courses of action. Most often, the choices are BOTH correct - but in a particular context. The key, then, is understanding the context of the decision.
|
|
A HAPPY NEW YEAR: A Logical-Haiku
January 5, 2008
comments?
|
Moving into the new year means saying good-bye to the old - where Olathe celebrated it's sesquicentennial birthday. Or so I read. What does this mean? Olathe was founded in 1857, and the name "Olathe" is an Indian word meaning "Beauty". I know "centennial" means "relating to a century", but "sesqui"? Literally, it means "half again". So if Olathe was founded in 1857, and if 150 translates to sesquicentennial, then Olathe is now celebrating it's sesquicentennial birthday. Clear enough.
Let's attach, via the logical haiku process, statements consistent with the 5-7-5 Haiku structure.
What other questions come to mind? Where do the prefixes originate from? What gave rise to Olathe being founded just prior to the Civil War? What constitutes the founding of any city? Lots of others, as is always the case when a foothold is created, because the work done in creating the foothold itself provides the grounding for authentic inquiry.
|
|
LAW ENFORCEMENT and RACIAL PROFILING
In Search of a Reasoned Response
January 6, 2008
comments?
|
(a letter to Kansas Governor Sebelius):
Recent Kansas action
regarding law enforcement and racial profiling is good. In our country,
where all have equal rights under the law, it’s essential to demonstrate
this equality is carried out as well in fact. A recent article in the KC
Star (August 5 titled “Kansas Law on Traffic Stops Often is Ignored”) I
believe irresponsibly demands acceleration of the data-collection
process in documenting the perception of racial profiling by the Kansas
law enforcement community. Wherein lies the irresponsibility? The
columnists site Missouri as a model to replicate. Let’s see. As our Kansas task-force
moves about the state talking about this important issue, it would be
interesting to see how other states have dealt with this issue. Luckily,
our good neighbors to the east, Missouri, have been at the forefront of
this issue, and have collected an impressive arsenal of data over the
past 7 years. What does their recent data show?
This ominous statistic suggests blacks are pulled over alarmingly 57% more frequently than whites. The racist perception seems confirmed! But if the ratio is 1.57 now, imagine what it must have been when the data collection process first started in 2000. Surely, with all the attention, data collection, and improvement initiatives, things are getting better, right? Let’s take a look at the historical data:
What is the Missouri Attorney
General, Jay Nixon, doing about all of this? They’re collecting massive
amounts of data, the data seems to show racism, and it’s getting worse.
What is he saying about it? What action items have come from the
process? The remarkable similarity in
the AG’s annual executive summary provides a hint. Each year, the
summary statistics are changed, dates updated, and a caveat added,
alerting us the data doesn’t tell the whole story. That’s it. Is there
no action to be taken from this data? No – and the Attorney General and
every law enforcement department in the state of Missouri knows it as
well. The data is meaningless. Is there racial profiling
taking place in Kansas law enforcement? Let’s collect the proper data to
properly answer the question. Are there rogue officers leading to a
general perception? The data should find them. Bad apples don’t have to
spoil the bushel. If there are bad apples, find the apples. Are officers
unconsciously making stops based on race? Let’s find out and bring this
to the conscious level and improve it. Is everything fine, and the
perception simply not correct? The data should show this as well. Data
used in this regard is information. Mirroring Missouri only asks
the proposed full-time analyst to spin straw into gold when given wrong
data. Let’s be sure Kansas does not follow the same tragic Missouri
footprints in this regard. The stakes are too high – the issue too
important. Let’s work to create a
process that ensures action, if warranted, will be taken. Our Kansas
citizens deserve this. Missouri citizens as well deserve this! Rather
than site Missouri as an example to follow, let’s ourselves be the
leaders in actionable task-force recommendations, from which Missouri
can follow. I look forward to hearing
from you. Sincerely, Michael Round Statistician: Rational Systems, Inc. Educator: Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
My "FEYNMAN-TEST": Do something.
Triangles, Proofs, and .... doing something.
January 7, 2008
comments?
|
It's such a commonly-known fact for many people the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees we don't give the fact much thought. But why is this the case? And why do students still get this problem wrong? Let's see what a "proof" of the issue looks like.
Euclid asks us to consider two lines apart by a common distance forever (what we know as parallel lines). Put a point on one line, and then draw two lines through the point, so they pass through the point and the opposite line.
Now, what do we know about any of the involved angles here? According to an early theorem in The Elements, alternate interior angles are equal, and we've got two relevant pairs below: A & A' and B & B'. .
Well, now I'm getting somewhere. I have a relation between A & A', and B & B'. Further, I see C belongs to both the angles of the straight line, and the interior of the triangle. But Euclid tells us the angles on one side of a line are equal to two right angles, and if these angles are equal to the interior angles of a triangle, then the interior angles of the triangle equal two right angles: 180 degrees.
There we have it. But is this a proof? It seems the simple fact comes from many things we must know beforehand: alternate interior angles, angles on one side of line. Even drawing the "parallel" lines in the first place presume a great many things. But this is the proof. Let's assume it's valid: does it help with our question of 180 degrees? Can we expect a young child to do this? Of course not.
What is the alternative? We can tell the student: the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. Fine. Does this help? Apparently not, as many students don't remember, or answer incorrectly: 360. Is there another method to the question: What is the sum of the angles in a triangle?
Measure them.
Imagine that.
The proof is in the pudding.
OKOK - for those of you daring to read this far likely are thinking of hyperbolic geometry, non-Euclidean geometry, and other geometries, you're probably eager to hit the "comment" button to correct me. Hold tight. Pause for a moment. Let me ask a question: can any theory contradict a direct perception?
But what might a proof look like, consistent with the age of the student in question? Let's start with the basic fact: a circle has 360 degrees. Even that begs the question: why is this the case? A great astronomical question. Maybe we introduce it here - maybe we're not certain of it.
But if a circle has 360 degrees, then half a circle has 180 degrees. Notice I can embed a triangle, albeit a flat one, in my half-circle. This means the angles in my triangle total 180 degrees.
|
|
Mary Poppins and System's Improvement
January 8, 2008
comments?
|
What is meant by a "Philosophical Board of Directors"? What have they in common? What exactly is the guiding philosophy of the Arete Academy?
. |
|
The Donner Party in the 21st Century
January 9, 2008
comments?
|
Imagine, if you can, mid-19th century America.
You want to go west. Everybody wants to go west. Of
course, there are neither cars nor airplanes. The transcontinental
railroad is years away. Your travel is by wagon train. Can
you imagine? Nearly 2000 miles - walking? When should you go? If you leave too early, your oxen will have nothing to eat. Leave too late and you will get stuck in the snowy mountain passes of the Sierra Nevadas. Timing is everything. So is daily progress. You've traveled for three months, starting from Springfield, Illinois. You're in Wyoming. You're tired. Can you imagine? Three months on a wagon train across open country, with more to come? You're camped alongside several other overland parties. These parties are going west, too, but by a new route - a shorter route! It has a name: the Hastings Cutoff. How that word must have sounded to the Springfield party: A CUTOFF! A shortcut! Who wouldn't jump at the sound of that word? You're practically to California! But let's not forget you're with a wagon train. There are others. Someone speaks up: "We don't know anything about this shortcut. What we do know is the trail we're on is the trail everyone takes, and it will get us to California."
What would you do? Of course, it's easy now to say they were fools. They should have stuck on the California Trail. We know Lansford Hastings had never actually traveled "The Hastings Cutoff". We know the fate of the Donner Party. But does this mean every time the word "shortcut" is uttered, it should be dismissed automatically, for fear of duplicating "The Donner Party"? Are there circumstances where shortcuts are good, or the downside of a failed shortcut is not so disastrous as that of the Donner Party? It's all part of the decision-making process. You must choose - but choose wisely - and rationally!
|
|
The Visual Display of Information
It's All Evidence
January 10, 2008
comments?
|
Some thoughts on ballot initiatives has pre-empted my planned daily entry. I received the following in the mail a few hours ago. This initiative below is one sentence. What a mess! A quick inspection reveals other design elements in need of a good cleaning. For example: Does this "January 29, 2008" date represent the date the ballots are due, the first date I'm allowed to send in the ballot? I don't know. Further, why are there two questions below? The first asks, "Shall the following be adopted"? The second, the long-sentence-paragraph, also closes as a question. Why? And why is the answer (Yes/No) so far from the initial question? Let's take a stab at a ballot-initiative redesign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Initiative - as prepared by the City:
City of Overland
Park Shall the following be adopted? Shall the City of Overland Park, Kansas, be authorized to levy a one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) Special Purpose City Retailers’ Sales Tax within the City of Overland Park, Kansas, and to use the revenue from the new tax to fund a residential street improvement program consisting of neighborhood residential street reconstruction, curb replacement, new sidewalks and street light upgrades, and to continue to fund a thoroughfare street improvement program, with each program to receive as nearly as possible one-half of the new tax revenue, such new tax to take effect on April 1, 2009, the day following expiration of the existing one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) City Retailers’ Sales Tax; such new tax to end March 31, 2014; and such new tax to be in addition to the ongoing one percent (1.0%) City Retailers’ Sales Tax currently levied? ____Yes ____No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Initiative - as prepared by me:
City of Overland Park Mail Ballot Election Ballots due noon, January 29, 2008 Shall the City of Overland Park, Kansas, be authorized to levy a one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) Special Purpose City Retailers’ Sales Tax within the City of Overland Park, Kansas?
____Yes ____No The revenue from the new tax will be used: 1. to fund a residential street improvement program consisting of neighborhood residential street reconstruction, curb replacement, new sidewalks and street light upgrades; and 2. to continue to fund a thoroughfare street improvement program. Each program will receive as nearly as possible one-half of the new tax revenue. This new tax will take effect on April 1, 2009 (the day following expiration of the existing one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) City Retailers’ Sales Tax), and will end March 31, 2014. This new tax will be in addition to the ongoing one percent (1.0%) City Retailers’ Sales Tax currently levied.
Can this be improved? Of course. But to improve, one must have a goal. What is the goal in all of this? Is it to communicate effectively to the citizen? Who can forget this fiasco ... re-reading it now, struggling through the maze of commas, I still do not know what this says. http://www.jocoelection.org/archives/questions/Q-County-09-2005.htm
|
|
Envisioning a Geosynchronous Orbiting System Before it Was Possible
How? Elevate the Constraint
January 11, 2008
comments?
|
Cell phones and GPS are so commonplace now, it's hard
to remember what things were like before these technological advances.
Considering the age of "civilized man", we are still children regarding
the transmission of signals. Bell and the telephone, Morse and the
Morse Code, the telegraph, Marconi's wireless transmission - these
inventions are not that old. Try, if you can, to go back 1/2 century. You want to talk with someone on the other side of the world. How would you do it? You couldn't. The length of the transmission you would send is limited. It would go a certain distance, and then head off into space. Why? The earth is curved - the transmission linear. What to do about it? There's certainly not a lot to be done with the curvature of the earth. It's pretty-much fixed. However, just verbalizing the existing system, possibilities come to mind: could ground-based communications be sent, maintaining a constant distance from the earth? It would certainly become a crowded digital world! But what alternative is there?
We must get above the earth! Imagine a communication-satellite orbiting the earth looking DOWN rather than transmission towers looking ACROSS. But would a satellite work? Of course not - the coverage would be only a fraction of the earth. However, a SYSTEM of communication satellites orbiting the earth would. The solution seems so obvious when basic facts are logically organized. But what about the details? How do we get such satellites into orbit? How do we KEEP them in an orbit, neither succumbing to earth's gravitational pull nor falling off into space? Should the satellites track with the rotation of the earth, or should they remain stationary as the earth rotates? Look for this in the next issue of "=EQUALS="!
A second thought: the more I think about "satellite coverage", and actually project this coverage to a globe, I recognize a familiar site - my line designs! Can it be a geosynchronous satellite system is, of course not literally but perhaps analogically, my line designs?
A Pretty Good Analogy? "Line Designs and Geosynchronous Satellite Systems" sounds like an interesting but non-relevant analogy, until you see the cover of Clarke's first collection of short stories:
A Final Thought (for now) A final thought (for now): this whole argument is based on the curvature of the earth, and transmissions going off into space. Why do they? I throw an apple up and gravity restores it to my hand. I shoot a bullet, and regardless of how fast it goes, gravity reels it in. Why do signals escape the force of gravity? As always, we see it does not take much to get the questions flying!
|
|
In Search of a Rational Penal System
Another Tragic Example of No Progress, as Debate Focuses on the Core Problem vs. the Constraint
January 12, 2008
comments?
|
The majority of the population is a law-abiding lot. They work hard in
earning a living, providing for their families. They want - they expect
- at a minimum a safe environment.
What should be done against those violating the safe environment? Breaking the law? Surely, the "punishment needs to fit the crime" ... prison should not be a haven of comfort, right? At a minimum, it seems we should ensure guilty persons are brought to justice and punished so they do not commit another crime. In doing so, prison is used as a place of "punishment". On the other hand, let's be realistic. The majority of prisoners get out of prison. Only a small minority are sentenced to life, and a fraction of this group serves life. If you're in prison, you likely will get out of prison. But what does it mean to get out if you're only returning to the environment you were in prior to committing the crime? Surely, prison then, should be a place of rehabilitation, right? A frequent dilemma heard in the penal system - what is prison for: punishment or rehabilitation?
And how has the penal system bridged this dilemma? How are they doing? A look at reincarceration rates tells us: pretty poorly! Can we do something more than "a balancing act" between "punishment" and "rehabilitation"?
|
|
Current Events and the Haiku as an Entry Point into Subject Matter
January 13, 2008
comments?
|
"Sunspots and other solar storms affect
electronics on Earth by generating intense magnetic fields. The worst
solar storms occur when material from the Sun is ejected towards
Earth--called a coronal mass ejection (CME). The highly charged material
from the solar corona is a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and
protons, but it is the coronal magnetic field that causes havoc within
the Earth's ionosphere and geomagnetic field.
CMEs cause the most damage when they disrupt the Earth's magnetosphere, compressing it on the day side and extending it on the night side. When the disrupted magnetosphere reconnects, it can generate trillions of watts of power in the Earth's upper atmosphere, resulting in Northern and Southern Lights. The excess energy can disrupt radio transmissions, damage communications satellites and even take down land-based electrical transmission lines causing power outages." By R. Colin Johnson EE Times January 8, 2008 11:29 AM http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205600814
What is going on here? Lots of facts, that's for sure. How do I organize them - at a basic level - so I have a general idea of what is going on? The observation: I see the aurora borealis. Of course, I don't - I've merely read it. Let's grab one from youtube.com. OK - now I see the aurora. How did this come to be? Research tells me: "Solar wind - hot plasma gas - flows past the earth." From where? The sun. What is plasma gas, and why is it flowing? What are the turbulence patterns of this gas? Later. For now, I'm happy with my general explanation. But is it a good explanation? "If solar wind flows past the earth, then I see the Aurora?" Nonsense. I see how my explanation is no explanation - there is neither a conceptual nor an operational connection between flowing gases and the aurora. Let's add it: "The gas strikes the earth's magnetic field emanating from the poles." How does my work read now: if solar wind flows past the earth, and if this gas strikes the earth's magnetic field, then I see the aurora. Much better - of course, you see the gaps in the logic, and a torrent of additional questions are likely flowing past your own head. The goal here was not a complete understanding of the aurora, but an entry point - a foothold - into the subject matter. But why stop here? Let's continue on with our Logical Haiku structure mentioned above and see what we come up with.
What I know about the above explanation - and you don't - is it took me a lot of work to create. To research, to put into my own words, struggling with terms I knew not the meaning of. This is where the learning starts. Reading someone else's logic can help. But struggling to do it yourself? You'll see a 400% increase in understanding, retention, knowledge - and JOY IN LEARNING!
|
|
Improvement Immediately in the Mathematical Classroom January 14, 2008
comments?
|
To all math teachers: let’s be honest – just you and I. You’re thinking: “Not another set of math materials promising ‘immediate improvement’! For goodness sakes, haven’t we had enough of these?” Haven’t we been inundated over the past ½ century, since the inception of “the New Math”, with promise after promise of math improvement? New techniques? New gimmicks? Make math relevant? Memory math? With this inundation of materials, wouldn’t you expect to see some change? Some improvement? Have we? If there has been improvement, it’s been marginal at best. Worse yet, with books like “Innumeracy”, “Algebra for Idiots”, and “Math for Dummies” consistently selling well, we seem to celebrate our numerical ignorance, content on merely staying afloat in a sea of numbers. What’s going on here? One thing seems certain: in recognizing the failures of the “New Math” and its many reincarnations, many popular programs have been developed to revamp the math curriculum. Relevance, fun, interdisciplinary, engaging materials are the buzzwords of such programs. Lots of programs seeking to rewrite the curriculum, recognizing the weaknesses of the current system. This seems reasonable, doesn’t it? After all, if the existing programs are responsible for the continued stagnation in performance, change the program, right? Now, kindly place yourself in the position of the math school teacher, the principal, the curriculum specialist. They are immensely aware of federal and state tests. Don’t misunderstand me – they are also well aware of the new programs. In fact, they’re constantly inundated with “flavor of the month” programs promoting excellence. But the “here and now” classrooms, kids, and curriculum are what these professionals must deal with. “How do I get the most I can within existing parameters?” An interesting dilemma facing the educational environment: address the core problem of the math curriculum itself, or squeeze what you can from the existing curriculum?
How have they managed this dilemma? We’ve already talked about it – by way of results. But let’s use some concrete problems with common errors:
Do these errors look familiar? How can such errors persist in an atmosphere of manipulatives, hands-on activities, critical thinking, etc? In an atmosphere where the educator is attempting to squeeze all they can from existing resources? But something seems amiss here. We said above teachers are attempting to squeeze all they can out of the existing environment. If this is the case, how can problems like these above continually show up on the “error-radar”?
Unified Problem Solving Revealing the Inherent Simplicity of the System The above problems – and errors – are where we’ll start. If students can’t get problems like these right, they certainly have little hope of doing well in math down the road. Problems like these are answered incorrectly because the student is guessing. But why? Haven’t we been taught many strategies for problems like these? Indeed, many! Many is good – isn’t it? But if many strategies were good, we’d see right answers, and we don’t. Can it be varying problem solving strategies confound the student, rather than assist? Like the carpenter-assistant confronted with a cluttered tool box, do we too assail the student’s mind with an anti-intellectual strategy of “the more the better”. The tactic:
Does this ominous structure look familiar? It looks like our familiar foe, "System A", contrasted below with friendly ally "System B":
But before we assail the “multiple problem-solving-strategies-as-good” paradigm, is there evidence it has led to poor results – in reality? Has the plan of extracting the most we can from the existing system, a noble venture, worked with this tactic? We need only look at our examples above, consolidated below as an UDE, as evidence.
The alternative to “System A”, with independent entities, was “System B”, displaying the interrelationship between the various elements in the system, and revealing an inherent simplicity. Inherent simplicity in math problem solving? Integrate multiple problem-solving strategies under a unified umbrella of thought? You bet. See http://www.rationalsys.com/math.html for further information, and look forward to the entry on "Conduction: integrating induction and deduction", coming soon.
|
|
Spelling Contests and the Illusion of "Excellence" January 15, 2008
comments?
|
I do a lot of research with the British National Corpus regarding the use of language, what words are actually used, and how they are used - in what context. The BNC can be found here: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ Play around with the "Lookup" section. Enter words - common or uncommon - and see how they're used. There's a lot more than just this, but just this is fun - and revealing. Look at "abhor", for example. It's a commonly tested word on vocabulary tests, but it is hardly ever used. Interesting. How about "serrefine". No results. It is flagged on this page I'm typing right now as being incorrectly spelled. Why have I chosen it? This was the winning word in the 2007 Scripps National Spelling Bee. Do I point this out to applaud the winner? The genius of the youth of America? No. On the contrary, I'd like to ask the question, "Why are words like this used as barometers of some form of excellence? Excellent - at what?" What other words were tested during the competition? I've compiled a list of all words tested during rounds 4-13 below. Look through the list. I can say there are only a handful of words I've even heard of, less still the number I myself have actually used. Look them up on the BNC and you'll see I'm not alone. The majority of these words have not been used - by anybody!
"What's the harm?", you may be asking, "in such a contest, even if the words are never used? Is there not something to be gained by the discipline of study? Of striving to achieve grand things?" "What's the harm?" When you study "strigil" and 50 words like it, it's to the neglect of other subjects, isn't it? But more than this, it's the method by which the contest is applied. I've never liked the "miss - you're out" nature of the contest, particularly when I may get "flabbergast" and Billy next to me gets "wheel". That never seemed fair, and I always wondered why kids aren't given the same words. Giving all the same 20 words would ensure fairness, and make sure if you simply didn't know one word, you wouldn't be unduly punished. Is a change like this feasible? Not now, because it would require the student, at a minimum, write down their answers, with an accompanying infrastructure to grade papers. This leads me to a thought that may be implemented: why can't the student at least write down their own word right now, look at it, and then spell it aloud? I assure you, though my Masters degree is in math, I cannot multiply 89 x 3 in my head - I must write it down. Many people can do it in their heads, and that's super, but particularly in this age where we recognize multiple intelligences, why does this one test focus solely on the auditory sense, and punish all others? As the Scripps contest moves forward, it would be nice to see consideration of all types of intelligences. This, I think, would expand the number of eligible students. In future modifications to this article, I'll talk about the (anti) conceptual nature of contests like this and similar contests like geography, history, and math speed quizzes.
A FOLLOW-UP NOTE I've talked with the Project Manager for the Scripps National Spelling Bee (Corrie Loeffloer), who corrected me on one issue, and then added a comment worth noting here for the record. During the preliminary round at the national level, she said, there is a 50-word written test, combined with an oral round, in which the students are given bonus points for correctly spelling a word. The combined written/oral scores are tabulated and the top spellers then advance. Ms. Loeffler then continued (regarding my comments about being able to write down words): "For the rest of the competition, we believe that the oral spelling adds greatly to the excitement of the contest, as well as upholding the unique American spelling bee tradition." I have no idea what this means. I do know it's dishonest to pretend you're interested in the improvement of the student's mind if you don't allow them to write down a word on a notecard to make sure they've spelled it correctly, or if you don't allow them to even start over in mid-spelling if they've realized they've made a mistake. Apparently, simple notions as these are "un-American". Nonsense. What sense is there to make of this? My hope is, perhaps, the mere goal in sounding out words and applying rules (prefix / suffix / root) was the goal of the Scripps contest, and excluding the contestant from writing out the words was a subtle attack on the inroads the whole-word / look-say method had (and has continued to have) in education. If so, I will retreat from my attack, because the whole-word movement is an attack on the conceptual facility, and is therefore un-American! More research to come on this thought. I believe I'm reaching, but we shall see! A final thought on this (for now): next time you're at a spelling contest, listen carefully to the proctor's pronunciation of the words. There is immense bias in the verbalization of the words. Listen for unnatural pauses. They're everywhere. And it's hard to control, because (see above) often times they're pronouncing words they've never spoken before. Un-American? Check your premises, Scripps!
A FOLLOW-UP FOLLOW-UP NOTE I attended the local spelling contest yesterday, and could only handle one round. Our local newspaper, school district, and most parents sat with joy watching the show. Only a couple of parents saw first-hand the inconsistencies of the competition. They were the parents of two students treated inconsistently. They protested - to no avail. This only hits the surface.
The bias in the pronunciation was obvious, as was the "alternate" pronunciations. Some children were given the alternate pronunciations without asking, others not. One poor child was given "highwayman", indistinguishable from "highwaymen", which is how the young man spelled the word. Please don't insult my intelligence by allowing "challenges" when the challenges are ignored.
Incidentally, the "challenge" section between rounds was new to me. This does not happen at the elementary level. Perhaps it should.
My two dominant protests about this contest, though, played themselves out. The variability of the words is huge. Why should one student get either "dogfight" and "floodlight", while the next gets "interrogate" or "guttural"? Yes, likely it all "evens out" in the long run, but, of course, if you spell "interrogate" incorrectly, you fail to cash in on the "evening out".
More importantly, two students missed words I'm certain they would have gotten right had they been able to simply write down the words on a piece of paper. I myself, when sounding out words out loud, lose my "place", and am an infinitely better speller when I write words down. The winner has a wonderful strategy of substituting her hand for the paper, "writing" the word on her hand. Why not allow them to write the word - ON A PIECE OF PAPER?
The answer, of course, is Scripps doesn't allow it.
So what?
|
|
Arriving at "Win-Win" Solutions January 16, 2008
comments?
|
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest. "Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?" "I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same." Why bother about winter? said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: the lesson: It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.
THE JONAH-ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER A New Future Reality In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest. "Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?" "You hop about, enjoying the moment," said the Ant, "and surely enjoyment of the moment is necessary for a happy life! However, you see us working and call it 'toiling and moiling'. " Are you sure we're not having more fun than you, while also preparing for the future?" The perplexed Grasshopper squinted and said softly, "I don't see how … work is work, and you have to admit: 'You're working!' I can see the sweat." "Sweat? Yes. Work? Yes. I'll admit both. You believe, though, if one works and sweats, one has no enjoyment. Do you not hear us as we 'toil and moil'? Do you not hear us singing, "The ants go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah?" "Chirp, sing, and work at the same time? 'Present Enjoyment' and 'Future Preparation' simultaneously - while having fun? I hadn't thought of this! I won't have to steal from you this winter like I always do!" the lesson: Whistle while you work.
More on fables later, because "life's little lessons", with careful inspection, provide little in the way of concrete suggestions on what specifically to do. One "looking before they leap" is beat to the punch by one recognizing "he who hesitates is lost". Every "lesson" seems met with a "counter-lesson". What to make of this? We've already addressed this, slightly, above with the example of "The Donner Party". Can both pronouncements be valid? Of course - in appropriate contexts.
|
|
Black Holes, Strange Attractors, and Basketball: Escaping the Deathgrip of Feedback by Attacking the Source January 17, 2008
comments?
|
The scene is a common one at a youth basketball game. A player with the ball loses his dribble, and is aggressively guarded. Not knowing how to pivot, he secures the ball. Teammates, seeing him in trouble, start towards him, looking for the pass. As they come, they bring their defenders with them. Rather than having a clear passing lane, the stuck player's options become more limited! Seeing him still in trouble, what do his teammates do? Rush forward, of course! Parents are yelling! Coaches are yelling! Pass! To no avail. The whistle expectantly blows: 5 seconds. The ball goes to the other team. Are you familiar with this pattern?
Though it's occurrence is so frequent it's tempting to think it an inevitable law of nature, we know there's something missing here, because this only happens with youth. It doesn't happen with skilled players, or even players a bit older. Why?
Does this structure provide me a way out of this death spiral? Adults yelling "spread out" and "get open" seems to fall upon deaf ears. Let's rule that out. But why are they rushing in? They see me in trouble. What signals am I sending that's caused the problem in the first place? Covering up? Of course! If I'm in a proper position to pass the ball, nobody thinks of running right at me - I'm not in trouble. I'm the source of the problem - which means I can be the source of the solution. Artificially created circularity and feedback! Not a law of nature, like a black hole, but a behavior of people that can be changed! ... if one thinks about it!
|
|
The Metaphysics of Quality meet Johnny Marching Home January 18, 2008
comments?
|
Most everybody is familiar with the opening line: "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again - Hurrah! Hurrah!" Of course, like many songs, the remaining words are sung with a sort of mumble, intermixed with a hummm. We know the cadence, but not the words. Given the words, of course, allows us to "sing along". Is this what the author intended? To merely sing along? What does the author intend when a song is written, a painting painted, a picture taken, or a book written? Rather than look at the words, let's look at the context of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home". Look back to 1863, if you can, and place yourself in the middle of the Civil War. It's hard, of course, so let's make it more concrete. Imagine you're a family with a member in the military now. They're in Iraq, Afghanistan, or stationed elsewhere in the world. They've been on active duty for 12-months, and you long for them to come home. Nowadays, of course, with e-mail and cell phones, relatives keep in contact. Imagine your relative away from home with no means of contact. Are they safe? You don't know. Are they even alive? You can only hope. But it's not just you - your neighbors know your story as well. They're friends with your "Johnny" and, as you, long for that moment when they can see ... Johnny Come Marching Home. With this backdrop, with this mindset, consider the lyrics:
I can literally "see" Johnny marching down the street. The street is lined with townspeople, young and old. Everybody is cheering! Johnny's smiling! The bell atop the bell-tower is ringing! "Thank goodness he's home!", I feel. What do you see? What do you feel? An experiment: for any song you think you know the lyrics to, ask yourself, "Can I create a mental picture of what's going on?" If you're like me, the answer is usually "no". Fine. How do I create the image, then? It requires research. On the origin of the song. On the songwriter. Looking up odd words in the dictionary. Attempting to recreate the context from which the song originated. And in doing so, you may find something extraordinary. The song takes on a new dimension. Deep meaning.
“Art OR Science” vs. “Art AND Science” An objection may come to mind: by analyzing music and reality in this method, do we not take away from the wonder of the moment? Can’t we merely sing the song without breaking it down by scientific analysis? Richard Feynman, the great physicist, addressed this point wonderfully in “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”: I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree, I think. And he says - “you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too … At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter; there is also a beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structures. Also the processes, the fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting - it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: Does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which shows that the science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds; I don’t understand how it subtracts.”
This, to me, sounds like integrating the dynamic and static quality of Robert Pirsig, uniting classic and romantic understanding into a unified system of inquiry and expression. It's not a one-street, but an ever-rising spiral.
|
|
Checkmate, Mr. Fischer January 19, 2008
comments?
|
I vaguely recall, as a youth, the chess match between
American Bobby Fischer and Soviet Boris Spassky. An international
chess match between the two Cold-War Super Powers. A chess match
on TV? Who would have thought it? What is it about chess - or any game - making the game, not necessarily enjoyable, but at a minimum, playable? The absolute nature of the rules. When playing cards, we call the player a cheater who suddenly says "deuces are wild", obviously because they have two. "No fair" is our rightful response. We reject the notion we should "ask Dad" about how to solve the problem; their is no problem! Similarly, in chess, we would not allow the player caught, after a series of brilliant and calculating moves, in a checkmate, to suddenly declare the bishop can move as a queen. Not only would we not allow it, we would recognize playing the game is not even possible The brilliant novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, in 1972, "An Open Letter to Boris Spassky", published in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?". The timeliness of this letter is relevant, due to the recent death of Bobby Fischer. Let's change the context from the Soviet Union to the United States today. What would you feel if, after having built a family farm, the government said you could not pass it down to your children unless you forfeit half of it? How would you feel if, having lived in a charming house for decades, the government suddenly declared the right to your property - to be used "for the public good"? How would you feel if, after running a successful pharmaceutical business for years, the government capriciously declared all children had a right to immunizations, to be purchased at a 50% discount, from you? How would you feel if, after paying social security taxes, you were taxed additionally - retroactively - for the same benefits? Rules are requirements to properly dealing with reality. But what kind of rules? Rules that restrict freedom - or rules consistent with the nature of man? Such is the greatness of this country - a country founded upon the nature of individual rights - the rights of man! But what of the man who retreats into the world of chess - or any game - completely? Is this an avenue of dealing with reality - or escaping from it? We know the story of Bobby Fischer now. We cringe when watching documentaries of this "intelligent" man making one insane proclamation after another. "How could this be?", you wonder? Ayn Rand said the following 36 years ago: "Bobby Fischer's behavior, however, mars the symbolism—but it is a clear example of the clash between a chess expert's mind, and reality. This confident, disciplined, obviously brilliant player falls to pieces when he has to deal with the real world. He throws tantrums like a child, breaks agreements, makes arbitrary demands, and indulges in the kind of whim-worship one touch of which in the playing of chess would disqualify him for a high-school tournament. Thus he brings to the real world the very evil that made him escape it: irrationality. A man who is afraid to sign a letter, who fears any firm commitment, who seeks the guidance of the arbitrary edicts of a mystic sect in order to learn how to live his life—is not a great, confident mind, but a tragically helpless victim, torn by acute anxiety and, perhaps, by a sense of treason to what might have been a great potential." To the farmer working diligently in the fields? Wonderful! To the doctor's constant vigilance in applying reason to fixing the body? Carry on! To the teacher striving to improve education? Charge ahead! To anybody using their mind to deal with reality? WELL DONE! To Bobby Fischer? Checkmate.. The image I conjure up when hearing the word "chess" is not the chess-game per se, but rather the Man in Black: Paladin! Morality and Metaphor: Chess and Justice in a TV Series
The show followed the adventures of Paladin, a gentleman-turned-gunfighter (played by Richard Boone on television, and by John Dehner on radio), who preferred to settle problems without violence, yet, when forced to fight, excelled. Paladin lived in the Carlton Hotel in San Francisco, where he dressed in semi-formal wear, ate gourmet food, and attended opera. In fact, many who met him initially mistook him for a dandy from the East. When working, he dressed in black, used calling cards and wore a holster which carried characteristic chess knight emblems, and carried a derringer under his belt. The knight symbol is in reference to his name — possibly a nickname or working name — and his occupation as a champion-for-hire (see paladin). The theme song of the series refers to him as "a knight without armor." In addition, Paladin drew a parallel between his methods and the chess piece's movement: "It's a chess piece, the most versatile on the board. It can move in eight different directions, over obstacles, and it's always unexpected." (from Wikipedia)
|
|
The Poetry of the Automatic Garage
January 20, 2008
comments?
|
There was a time when garage doors were manually
operated - you pulled up to your garage, got out of your car, opened the
garage door, retreated to your car, and pulled in to the garage. Wouldn't it be convenient to have a garage door that opened - automatically? As you pulled into the driveway, push a button and up goes the door, and into the garage you go? Wonderful. Of course let's say as you're walking out to get the Sunday paper, the garage door unexpectedly descends. "Bang!" on the head! Not just on your head retrieving the paper, but your child's head innocently walking outside to play. Back to the drawing board. We've got to redesign the system to "not come down" - but when? When something is immediately underneath the door? Super. There remain many operational issues here. At what height should the sensors be placed? What happens if my bumper is in the way, but above the sensor? I want the "system" to "turn around", so there must be consideration for "resistance" in the electronic system. And there is no "right" answer here. You may think, "If the sensor senses anything, turn around." You'd think differently in a snow storm, where it is virtually impossible to close the door automatically because the sensors are sensing snow! Relevant thoughts to the "Logical Haiku" of the week. My observation: My garage door will not close.
|
|
To Hit or Not to Hit? That is My Question
January 21, 2008
comments?
|
What was the operational message of MLK, Jr.?
Peaceful nonviolence? How does this work in reality? One
sits at a restaurant counter where the sign says you're not allowed, and
demand service. The police come, and you're arrested. You're
struck. You're put in jail. This, done on a grand scale,
must bring attention to the issue. It becomes an issue that cannot
be avoided. It must be dealt with. Part of me agrees with
this. On the other hand, if you refuse me service while serving the man next to me, my first inclination is to throw a brick through your window. If you strike me, be assured you will be hit harder. But does this make the situation better, or worse? Is there a context, I wonder, where both are relevant? Both are practical? Likely. Watching - rewatching - Exodus, the quote below I believe wonderfully depicts the goal, whether the issue is Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Whites, or any group of people. And herein may lie a direction to a solution. We talk in terms of "groups" of people. We are all individuals. Wouldn't it be nice if discussions took place under the auspices of the nature of man, man's nature, man's relationship with reality, and a political system consistent with and recognizing that nature? Individual rights!
|
|
January 22, 2008
comments?
|
Is a square a rhombus? Is a rhombus a
parallelogram - or is it the other way around ... a parallelogram is a
rhombus? I've never had a good grasp on questions like this, and I
think it's because of the format of the question.
Suppose I break them down into definitions: a square is a 4-sided shape where all sides are equal and all angles are right. a parallelogram is a 4-sided shape where opposite sides are parallel. a trapezoid is a 4-sided shape where only one of the sides is parallel. Let's stop here: does this help any? Refined definitions? Perhaps some people, but not me. But let's look at the distinguishing characteristics of my list - my conceptual common denominators, if you will: everything has 4-sides. That's the general characteristic, giving rise to the general term: quadrilateral, literally "four sides". But what of the other characteristics? There seem to be three: the "parallelness of sides", the "rightness of angles", and the "equality of sides". Let's start to make sense of this: if I have a four-sided polygon, then I have a quadrilateral. Let's not just make the claim - let's include figures along the way!
Let's next consider the parallelness of the sides: either one set of sides is parallel, both are, or neither are. In the latter case, I'm left with simply a quadrilateral.
Let's verbalize the diagram: if I have a quadrilateral, and if only one pair of sides are parallel, then I have a trapezoid. Also, if I have a quadrilateral, and if both pairs of sides are parallel, then I have a parallelogram. Now I'm making progress! I seem at a dead-end with "trapezoid", but the real action starts to take place with the parallelogram, and it seems I can go two directions now: consider first the rightness of the angle, or the equality of the sides. I wonder if it matters.
Again, let's verbalize our connections: what's a rhombus? If I have a parallelogram, and if all sides are of equal length, then that's a rhombus. But isn't that the definition of a square? Well, we now see the relationship between the two: a square is a rhombus, but only when all angles are right angles. It's a special kind of rhombus! Additionally, a square is a rectangle where all sides are equal. So what is a square? It's a rhombus. It's also a parallelogram, a rectangle, and a quadrilateral! Ask me any question and I'm able to answer - perhaps not instantly - but correctly, if given the time to think! Conceptual common denominators. Distinguishing characteristics. Genus and differentia. This is the nature of the thinking man. Reliance on specifics? Rote memorization? Concrete-mentality? That's the nature of the non-thinking brute. See "January 15th" in this regard, and you'll see this in practice; hence, a reason I abhor this type of non-mental thought process!
|
|
January 23, 2008
comments?
|
The King and I ... one of my favorite musicals. "Puzzlement". One of my favorite words. The lyrics of this song highlight many timeless dilemmas - of person and country. First, the lyrics
Before the world is left to the "fishes" |
