Perhaps this POV isn't as strange as I once thought:
I think the media machine has gone out of control. What is and isn't considered news anymore is becoming increasingly harmful to the public and it's time to turn things around. News service is meant to keep people informed, not keep them afraid. I can think of two ways to solve this problem.
The first one involves petitioning the networks to follow up on stories that spread fear and untruth. If people in the know start raising the bullshit flag on national television and work hard to destroy the dominance currently held by pundits, the general populace can stop living in fear and start thinking for themselves.
Other than working with the existing networks, well informed persons can join together in starting a new network dedicated to debunking fearmongers. The Mythbusters have a large following and a successful model for doing just that. Truth can be entertaining.
The movement can even take a cue from Fox news because people take pleasure in proving "respected" sources wrong. We have the technology to make this work. All we need now is the people.
This movement needs a name, and it needs a forum. Until something more official pops up, use the comment thread below this blog post to share ideas about how we can stop the oppression and fear that has been running rampant through the media outlets for far too long.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
My Late Night Thoughts, Feelings, and Philosophical Musings
I think on the definition of "homo sapiens", or rather, the translation of it "same as me". Funny, isn't it, that we define humans as "same as me"? This means, then, that because I am unique, and nobody can be the same as me, that none of you are human. I am the only human, and no one else can be human because no one is the same as me. But of course, to another point of view, the same is true. If I were someone else, then I would still be the only human, for the same reason. Strange then that you would also be able to say you are the only human because none is the same as you. Too bad the definition is "same as me" because you don't matter. Only me. Thus I study psychology to understand the ways of the people, who are not homo sapiens but simply an entity or group of entities other than me. This does not mean I am psychopathic or anything like that; merely that I have the wisdom to see a flaw in our language that is often overlooked. Strange, this is exactly the sort of flaw that would cause me so much trouble in school. I would follow directions to the letter when I was meant to follow the spirit and to the spirit when meant to follow the letter. It is my basic misunderstanding of intentions that caused me to fail so many assignments. I was not meant to learn how to do something but what to do in order to get it done. I’ll not bother explaining the difference; you'll just have to get it wrong.
It’s funny how humans seem to always search for the one basic thing that explains everything. This I believe to be folly. It’s true that according to Occam’s razor, the simpler explanation must be more true. It’s just that I find the simplest explanation to be admitting the complexity of something. All the theories of psychology address a different aspect of the human experience. Why can't they all be partially right and partially wrong? Why can't we figure out why one part of a theory works while another doesn't? I say throw out the garbage and look at what we know to be true and functional. After that, we can start to sew together the scraps into a quilt of ideas more complete than any of the "all inclusive" theories were to begin with. It’s absolutely amazing what we do know about ourselves if we throw out all the outdated and frankly disproved ideas. It all fits, really. When I take all the things I have learned, all the things I know, and salt away the fat, I am left with an honestly disturbing and yet strangely beautiful idea of the universe. I won't go into it here; it will take an entire book to explain how it all interrelates. Chaos is a beautiful thing.
It's too bad that school is such a mystery to me, or rather, the teaching methods and attitudes of some people, and my difficulties with homework. I have given thought to the matters leading up to these current problems and found that there are a small number of common themes. First among these right now is the idea of backbone. I define this term as the opposite of spinelessness, the willingness, ability and action of standing up for oneself and others in the name of one's own values and beliefs. I also have a strong distrust for authority. On top of all that I love to learn new things but quickly lose interest if it feels forced on me.
In kindergarten I was known as a bulldog to my teacher, because I would not let a subject drop until I had decided it was over. I would fight over things that to my teacher had been concluded and otherwise taken care of. This, of course, seems to have been somewhat of a theme in itself. I did not think much of it at the time, but now I recognize that it seems to mean that I was thinking of things in their entirety, and not just of those important aspects related to the immediate moment.
Later, whenever I would get into an argument with a teacher, there was some injustice or other that would bother me, or some detail in some directions that I disagreed with or whatever, but the end result was always the same. I would be told that I had to listen to the teacher because she was the authority and I had no rights to say anything against her. Every time I would get in trouble at school, I would of course be punished in some way. It’s only natural. There were repercussions at home, in addition to the punishment at school. I was often grounded for things I had done at school, for my exasperated teachers had given my mom the idea that school punishments were not enough and should be paired with punishment at home. It never occurred to my mom that my account of an incident might have some truth to it, because the teacher was the authority figure and always had the last say.
The problem is that I never really understood what it was that I had done wrong. I never once started a fight. I don't think I’ve ever been the first to swing a fist, though I was often the first to connect. My fights never got beyond that first hit. I suppose I was disruptive, but there was ALWAYS, in my memory, some stimulus preceding it. Often there was name calling, or other argument. Usually it was an argument and didn't get past that. I have a loud voice, and I’m not afraid to use it. I was "out of control" in many different meanings of the phrase. I was constantly in trouble at school and had been "legally" labeled a trouble maker. I did not have many friends, it was too much fun to goad me into trouble and I never understood why people would be mean to each other. I know now that if I had responded in kind (with meanness) I would largely have had fewer problems. Instead I was hurt and didn't understand and so was never left alone. I had easily pushable "buttons" that would leave anyone but me safely out of the eyes of the teacher. It took me some eight or ten years, but I learned to defend myself from these sorts of things. This is where I get my idea of backbone, and why I simultaneously despise anyone without it. I could not defend myself, and others would not, so I suffered all the pain that came my way with very little buffer.
Today I am still the same person I was before I learned to defend myself from the world, but now those defenses are sometimes more in my way than they are helpful. I now have a hard time finding my internal motivation, and find myself putting up a heavy resistance to any but the most gentle and subtle external direction. More often I am able to force myself to do things I do not want to do, but usually the motivation comes from within and not from without. Or maybe that's not true and it's the other way around. Really I am confused about why things like dishes and homework require phenomenal effort to begin while tackling a project at work is less about overcoming internal barriers and more about dealing with a real situation. Perhaps it is that I have no or very little pain attached to anything I might do at work while school and chores carry emotional baggage that I cannot seem to be rid of easily. I excel the most at projects of my own choosing, though those are easily tainted by an external source and may lose their appeal after a time.
I am a student that loves to learn but cannot stand to do traditional class work (philosophy classes and other circumstances that require divergent thought are still fun to me, perhaps unaffected because of the nature of grade school subject material). I have always been a fairly active person, internally motivated and fascinated with everything around me. My favorite television shows when I was young were those that explained nature, and otherwise how things worked. I used to think I would be great at helping other people overcome psychological problems (hence the psych major), but I am beginning to think that this isn’t the best choice for me as I gain some personal experience in a classroom setting.
According to the traditional definitions, I would be a bad student as opposed to a good one because I rarely ever do any homework or reading of textbooks and often seem to annoy teachers and professors with my questions. Then again, I am approaching the end of my third year in college, so I must have done something right, even if it was a slight nod to conformity by doing just enough to not fail. I had thought all through school that there was something missing from my studies and I began to discover I wasn’t the only one thinking this way as articles are published in magazines and elsewhere suggesting that the teachers of the country and our education program in general is lacking exactly the types of things I identified on my way through it. My grades are generally bad, but I would be able to support that compared to a typical 4.0 student, I have had the better education.
I do a lot of reading and have read some of the books that some uneducated people would designate as harmful and candidates for banning. I take pride in having indulged in such "explicit" material for it does indeed explicitly outline the dire conditions of ignorance and general stupidity running rampant throughout societies. I believe that because I can see it and recognize that it's there, I can transcend it and drag our society kicking and screaming to new heights where at long last a majority of people will be climbing upward productively instead of stagnating and subjugating the less fortunate for their selfish needs. I suppose this is, part of why I find it so distasteful to be told to think without questioning.
I am a philosopher, in the literal sense: a lover of wisdom, for with wisdom comes the desire for knowledge and knowledge is power, which corrupts. Perhaps I will avoid corruption as I gain my knowledge, but certainly I see exactly what it is about knowledge that corrupts. It’s not just any knowledge that does it, it's the knowledge that so many people don't have the same knowledge, even don't want it. It’s the knowledge that ignorance is not bliss. It’s the knowledge that by keeping other people ignorant, I can tell them to think whatever I want them to think and they will think it without question because of my authority and power as a knowledgeable person. This is the corruption of knowledge: for who in their right mind would deny themselves the release from the everyday drudgery of work (oh foul, four letter word) by subjugating others to do one's will? Who would not take advantage of being free to advance one's own interests to the exclusion of all else, having all else taken care of already? Why can't a person focus solely on the upper levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, having virtually automated the ones below? Who cares that the automatons working for you to do this are also human beings that could enjoy such realized potential? What does it matter? I cease to understand, in my understanding, that it matters at all, or that it ever mattered to begin with. My understanding puts me above those that tried so hard to keep me down, keep me in control. Now, I can look down from my understanding and laugh at them, for they did not only miss the potential I had in me, but they missed the potential they had in themselves, believing or at least seeming to believe that their power was enough for them, that their control and influence over others lives was absolute. They delude themselves into thinking that they can know the effect their influence will have on an individual and that when that individual seems to be uninfluenced or influenced otherwise than they intended, that individual is hopelessly doomed to failure.
I am a musician. This may be the one thing that gets me ahead in my material existence. I love composing and performing music and would be happy to pursue it with abandon to the end of time. It seems to have nearly everything I need all rolled into one or easily available from within. I can philosophize, psychoanalyze, imaginize, and mathemetize all in less than three minutes with one idea. I could affect millions, I could make millions, I could retire early and often to take on projects of no relation. I could set my own hours, choose who I associate with, and randomly vanish from the scene with relative impunity. I could satisfy all of my intellectual and emotional desires simultaneously. I can't possibly get started because I am committed to another path and am otherwise expected to disregard all urges to make music a profession. I could not justify to myself even the costs to others if I were to choose this path without first having some other means to support myself. After all, I have a backbone and feel a need to stand up for myself even to my own detriment... and unfortunately my physical needs come before my creative needs.
I am a psychologist. I wish to understand people as fully as possible for without this understanding, how am I to relate to them? By studying people and how they think, I can better prepare myself for manipulating them to suit my needs. Everybody wants to control everybody else, at least in some way. Why not make sure I can do it better by learning how people think? I want to control people in such a way that causes them to show me some respect, at the very least. I want to be able to interact with them adeptly and without making myself seem a fool unless it would improve the situation. Also, by publishing research, I may be able to influence such things as the education system and how educators are taught. It's one of my ultimate goals to reform the entire education system into something that gets this country back on track to reclaim the position of number one in the world technologically.
I am a writer. As if you could not see that already. I have an urge to write that is nearly as bad as that to make music. Sometimes if I do not indulge myself as I am now it causes problems that I can't seem to overcome until I get it out of the way. That’s how this started. I could not sleep. I took a shower to settle my mind. When I came out, my mind was not settled, so I gave in to my urge and began to write. Now I am still not sleeping but somehow I am beginning to feel better and even rested as I dump the contents of my brain into this file. I expect that in due course I shall actually be able to go to bed, but not before I have finished this little project. I often think of things to write about. Lately it happens most often in a philosophy class when I see an order, or sometimes a disorder in the way things are presented by one famous philosopher or another and I feel a need to close a gap, either in their logic, or else wise in their explanation of something. It also happens in psychology where I get an idea about the elephant the blind men are touching. I begin to see pathways opening up before me that have never been traveled before, unifying ideas that could rewrite textbooks and reshape how we think about thinking and the brain. I can't wait to start writing my philosophical book "On the Nature of God". In it I plan to expose God as an idea belonging to many people and taking as many shapes for no particular reason beyond that we have an urge to be controlled. I also plan to write some science fiction. I've always loved sci-fi and most of my ideas for fiction involve technology higher than our own and the implications it will have in society.
I am a person. Perhaps I wrote this whole thing out to try and define myself. I don't know if I have succeeded. In philosophy class I heard that a person is not made up of beliefs. I never did hear what a person IS. To me, a person is as defined by the self. A logical loop by its very inexpressibility in human language. A person is a product of his or her past, the cumulation of his or her potential. A person is a specific thought pattern, subject to change at any given time by any input. A person is a black box, that may have rules, but the rules change with every new piece of data thrown through it. A person is the behaviors exhibited by the person, the output of the black box with unknown and perhaps unknowable rules. A person is the quantum state of an idea at any one time, being constantly influenced so that none can ever know the velocity and position at the same time. A person is a moving, thinking, progressive and transitive being. I am a person. I have unique thought patterns and unique history. In the potentially infinite universe, there may be an infinite number of iterations of me that are STILL not me because only I am at this one particular place at this one particular time. There can be no other that exists exactly as I do because every aspect of my being is an aspect of my identity and any difference makes a person even who thinks exactly the same thoughts as me and engages in exactly the same actions different from me because we are in some way separate. I am Me. I change, I grow, I learn, I think, I breathe, I am. If you understand me, you don't. If you understand that you can't understand me, and that I can never understand you, then maybe we can come to an understanding. Maybe now I can get some sleep.
It’s funny how humans seem to always search for the one basic thing that explains everything. This I believe to be folly. It’s true that according to Occam’s razor, the simpler explanation must be more true. It’s just that I find the simplest explanation to be admitting the complexity of something. All the theories of psychology address a different aspect of the human experience. Why can't they all be partially right and partially wrong? Why can't we figure out why one part of a theory works while another doesn't? I say throw out the garbage and look at what we know to be true and functional. After that, we can start to sew together the scraps into a quilt of ideas more complete than any of the "all inclusive" theories were to begin with. It’s absolutely amazing what we do know about ourselves if we throw out all the outdated and frankly disproved ideas. It all fits, really. When I take all the things I have learned, all the things I know, and salt away the fat, I am left with an honestly disturbing and yet strangely beautiful idea of the universe. I won't go into it here; it will take an entire book to explain how it all interrelates. Chaos is a beautiful thing.
It's too bad that school is such a mystery to me, or rather, the teaching methods and attitudes of some people, and my difficulties with homework. I have given thought to the matters leading up to these current problems and found that there are a small number of common themes. First among these right now is the idea of backbone. I define this term as the opposite of spinelessness, the willingness, ability and action of standing up for oneself and others in the name of one's own values and beliefs. I also have a strong distrust for authority. On top of all that I love to learn new things but quickly lose interest if it feels forced on me.
In kindergarten I was known as a bulldog to my teacher, because I would not let a subject drop until I had decided it was over. I would fight over things that to my teacher had been concluded and otherwise taken care of. This, of course, seems to have been somewhat of a theme in itself. I did not think much of it at the time, but now I recognize that it seems to mean that I was thinking of things in their entirety, and not just of those important aspects related to the immediate moment.
Later, whenever I would get into an argument with a teacher, there was some injustice or other that would bother me, or some detail in some directions that I disagreed with or whatever, but the end result was always the same. I would be told that I had to listen to the teacher because she was the authority and I had no rights to say anything against her. Every time I would get in trouble at school, I would of course be punished in some way. It’s only natural. There were repercussions at home, in addition to the punishment at school. I was often grounded for things I had done at school, for my exasperated teachers had given my mom the idea that school punishments were not enough and should be paired with punishment at home. It never occurred to my mom that my account of an incident might have some truth to it, because the teacher was the authority figure and always had the last say.
The problem is that I never really understood what it was that I had done wrong. I never once started a fight. I don't think I’ve ever been the first to swing a fist, though I was often the first to connect. My fights never got beyond that first hit. I suppose I was disruptive, but there was ALWAYS, in my memory, some stimulus preceding it. Often there was name calling, or other argument. Usually it was an argument and didn't get past that. I have a loud voice, and I’m not afraid to use it. I was "out of control" in many different meanings of the phrase. I was constantly in trouble at school and had been "legally" labeled a trouble maker. I did not have many friends, it was too much fun to goad me into trouble and I never understood why people would be mean to each other. I know now that if I had responded in kind (with meanness) I would largely have had fewer problems. Instead I was hurt and didn't understand and so was never left alone. I had easily pushable "buttons" that would leave anyone but me safely out of the eyes of the teacher. It took me some eight or ten years, but I learned to defend myself from these sorts of things. This is where I get my idea of backbone, and why I simultaneously despise anyone without it. I could not defend myself, and others would not, so I suffered all the pain that came my way with very little buffer.
Today I am still the same person I was before I learned to defend myself from the world, but now those defenses are sometimes more in my way than they are helpful. I now have a hard time finding my internal motivation, and find myself putting up a heavy resistance to any but the most gentle and subtle external direction. More often I am able to force myself to do things I do not want to do, but usually the motivation comes from within and not from without. Or maybe that's not true and it's the other way around. Really I am confused about why things like dishes and homework require phenomenal effort to begin while tackling a project at work is less about overcoming internal barriers and more about dealing with a real situation. Perhaps it is that I have no or very little pain attached to anything I might do at work while school and chores carry emotional baggage that I cannot seem to be rid of easily. I excel the most at projects of my own choosing, though those are easily tainted by an external source and may lose their appeal after a time.
I am a student that loves to learn but cannot stand to do traditional class work (philosophy classes and other circumstances that require divergent thought are still fun to me, perhaps unaffected because of the nature of grade school subject material). I have always been a fairly active person, internally motivated and fascinated with everything around me. My favorite television shows when I was young were those that explained nature, and otherwise how things worked. I used to think I would be great at helping other people overcome psychological problems (hence the psych major), but I am beginning to think that this isn’t the best choice for me as I gain some personal experience in a classroom setting.
According to the traditional definitions, I would be a bad student as opposed to a good one because I rarely ever do any homework or reading of textbooks and often seem to annoy teachers and professors with my questions. Then again, I am approaching the end of my third year in college, so I must have done something right, even if it was a slight nod to conformity by doing just enough to not fail. I had thought all through school that there was something missing from my studies and I began to discover I wasn’t the only one thinking this way as articles are published in magazines and elsewhere suggesting that the teachers of the country and our education program in general is lacking exactly the types of things I identified on my way through it. My grades are generally bad, but I would be able to support that compared to a typical 4.0 student, I have had the better education.
I do a lot of reading and have read some of the books that some uneducated people would designate as harmful and candidates for banning. I take pride in having indulged in such "explicit" material for it does indeed explicitly outline the dire conditions of ignorance and general stupidity running rampant throughout societies. I believe that because I can see it and recognize that it's there, I can transcend it and drag our society kicking and screaming to new heights where at long last a majority of people will be climbing upward productively instead of stagnating and subjugating the less fortunate for their selfish needs. I suppose this is, part of why I find it so distasteful to be told to think without questioning.
I am a philosopher, in the literal sense: a lover of wisdom, for with wisdom comes the desire for knowledge and knowledge is power, which corrupts. Perhaps I will avoid corruption as I gain my knowledge, but certainly I see exactly what it is about knowledge that corrupts. It’s not just any knowledge that does it, it's the knowledge that so many people don't have the same knowledge, even don't want it. It’s the knowledge that ignorance is not bliss. It’s the knowledge that by keeping other people ignorant, I can tell them to think whatever I want them to think and they will think it without question because of my authority and power as a knowledgeable person. This is the corruption of knowledge: for who in their right mind would deny themselves the release from the everyday drudgery of work (oh foul, four letter word) by subjugating others to do one's will? Who would not take advantage of being free to advance one's own interests to the exclusion of all else, having all else taken care of already? Why can't a person focus solely on the upper levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, having virtually automated the ones below? Who cares that the automatons working for you to do this are also human beings that could enjoy such realized potential? What does it matter? I cease to understand, in my understanding, that it matters at all, or that it ever mattered to begin with. My understanding puts me above those that tried so hard to keep me down, keep me in control. Now, I can look down from my understanding and laugh at them, for they did not only miss the potential I had in me, but they missed the potential they had in themselves, believing or at least seeming to believe that their power was enough for them, that their control and influence over others lives was absolute. They delude themselves into thinking that they can know the effect their influence will have on an individual and that when that individual seems to be uninfluenced or influenced otherwise than they intended, that individual is hopelessly doomed to failure.
I am a musician. This may be the one thing that gets me ahead in my material existence. I love composing and performing music and would be happy to pursue it with abandon to the end of time. It seems to have nearly everything I need all rolled into one or easily available from within. I can philosophize, psychoanalyze, imaginize, and mathemetize all in less than three minutes with one idea. I could affect millions, I could make millions, I could retire early and often to take on projects of no relation. I could set my own hours, choose who I associate with, and randomly vanish from the scene with relative impunity. I could satisfy all of my intellectual and emotional desires simultaneously. I can't possibly get started because I am committed to another path and am otherwise expected to disregard all urges to make music a profession. I could not justify to myself even the costs to others if I were to choose this path without first having some other means to support myself. After all, I have a backbone and feel a need to stand up for myself even to my own detriment... and unfortunately my physical needs come before my creative needs.
I am a psychologist. I wish to understand people as fully as possible for without this understanding, how am I to relate to them? By studying people and how they think, I can better prepare myself for manipulating them to suit my needs. Everybody wants to control everybody else, at least in some way. Why not make sure I can do it better by learning how people think? I want to control people in such a way that causes them to show me some respect, at the very least. I want to be able to interact with them adeptly and without making myself seem a fool unless it would improve the situation. Also, by publishing research, I may be able to influence such things as the education system and how educators are taught. It's one of my ultimate goals to reform the entire education system into something that gets this country back on track to reclaim the position of number one in the world technologically.
I am a writer. As if you could not see that already. I have an urge to write that is nearly as bad as that to make music. Sometimes if I do not indulge myself as I am now it causes problems that I can't seem to overcome until I get it out of the way. That’s how this started. I could not sleep. I took a shower to settle my mind. When I came out, my mind was not settled, so I gave in to my urge and began to write. Now I am still not sleeping but somehow I am beginning to feel better and even rested as I dump the contents of my brain into this file. I expect that in due course I shall actually be able to go to bed, but not before I have finished this little project. I often think of things to write about. Lately it happens most often in a philosophy class when I see an order, or sometimes a disorder in the way things are presented by one famous philosopher or another and I feel a need to close a gap, either in their logic, or else wise in their explanation of something. It also happens in psychology where I get an idea about the elephant the blind men are touching. I begin to see pathways opening up before me that have never been traveled before, unifying ideas that could rewrite textbooks and reshape how we think about thinking and the brain. I can't wait to start writing my philosophical book "On the Nature of God". In it I plan to expose God as an idea belonging to many people and taking as many shapes for no particular reason beyond that we have an urge to be controlled. I also plan to write some science fiction. I've always loved sci-fi and most of my ideas for fiction involve technology higher than our own and the implications it will have in society.
I am a person. Perhaps I wrote this whole thing out to try and define myself. I don't know if I have succeeded. In philosophy class I heard that a person is not made up of beliefs. I never did hear what a person IS. To me, a person is as defined by the self. A logical loop by its very inexpressibility in human language. A person is a product of his or her past, the cumulation of his or her potential. A person is a specific thought pattern, subject to change at any given time by any input. A person is a black box, that may have rules, but the rules change with every new piece of data thrown through it. A person is the behaviors exhibited by the person, the output of the black box with unknown and perhaps unknowable rules. A person is the quantum state of an idea at any one time, being constantly influenced so that none can ever know the velocity and position at the same time. A person is a moving, thinking, progressive and transitive being. I am a person. I have unique thought patterns and unique history. In the potentially infinite universe, there may be an infinite number of iterations of me that are STILL not me because only I am at this one particular place at this one particular time. There can be no other that exists exactly as I do because every aspect of my being is an aspect of my identity and any difference makes a person even who thinks exactly the same thoughts as me and engages in exactly the same actions different from me because we are in some way separate. I am Me. I change, I grow, I learn, I think, I breathe, I am. If you understand me, you don't. If you understand that you can't understand me, and that I can never understand you, then maybe we can come to an understanding. Maybe now I can get some sleep.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Black Box Idea and Philosophical Discourse
The human mind is currently a mystery in many ways. There are many theories about it's inner working, all of which are both correct and incorrect or at least incomplete. I think it's impossible to get a holistic notion of the human mind without taking a holistic approach. Currently, our theories will at best describe and explain only a specific set of attributes and interactions. I suggest taking a new look at the whole field from a different point of view.
In this new point of view, we can treat the human mind as a black box. It receives input from various sources including genetics and sensory signals. The input is not only processed by a currently unknown mechanism, but also stored in the mechanism itself, changing the process. Think back to grade school. Most of us have had the experience of "finding the rule" games in math. There's a list of numbers on one side of a black box, and another list on the other side. Each number on the input side is paired with another number on the output side. At the bottom of both lists is usually a space for the student to write the rule that produces the output from a given input. The goal for the field of psychology then becomes to figure out what the basic rule is that governs the process of assimilation and the behavior that results from it.
This goal may seem completely unattainable, but isn't it the same goal psychology has been pursuing since the beginning? The only real difference is that I take into account the fact that every individual is different, and has different experiences. My POV would encourage isolating the genetic components in specific, while recognizing that some genetic patterns are not universal. It is, of course, the universal genetic roots we are looking for in the long run -- the parts that are common to all people. Really, this is no different from any other approach to studying psychology. Mainly, I wish to emphasize creating unity in the field.
Each of the different theories within psychology seem to be better at some things than others. This has been a simple fact of life for a long time, especially apparent to the counseling profession. Counselors have been playing mix and match with their techniques and therapies in order to provide the best service to their clients. Cognitive for depression, behavioral for addiction, psychodynamic for dissociation disorders and so on. Why would the predictions of one theory work for some things and not others if it weren't incomplete? Why do we keep old theories around if they don't work for everything? Why haven't we integrated the different approaches yet? I could be wrong, but I suspect it's because researchers enter the field with a "pet" theory that makes the most sense to them, and they ignore the other approaches in their research. It's time for that to end. We need to trim off the ideas that don't work or don't explain anything and fill the gap with information that does the job. The field of psychology is less the mountain of knowledge that is physics and more like a slice of swiss cheese. We don't know much and what we do know has holes.
If we can accurately identify and categorize the inputs and outputs possible in a human life, we may be able to get a glimpse of the underlying rules that govern our species. Not only that, but, given a certain set of inputs, gained from a study of an individual's life, we can begin to predict behavior patterns more accurately and consistently. We may even gain a fundamental knowledge of the ailments and antisocial behaviors and so on that plague our existence. By looking at a life as an accumulation of inputs to an individual, we can see more clearly what is really going on in the brain. This approach will not destroy older research, but place it in a new light. We'll consider the events outside of the experiments themselves to account for anomalies in the data and learn more thoroughly why one person will express a certain behavior and another will not. We won't only gain insights into personalities, but into all the ways we group particular behaviors and interactions. I look forward to applying in parallel the different theories.
Perhaps we will even be able to create a system by which we can make some careful generalizations by which we can treat the most common of ailments. Whether or not this point of view becomes a popular one, I will look at all the research I am involved with and all the people I meet with this idea in mind. I will remember that one's past influences one's future, that we all think differently and sometimes incorrectly. I will remember that all our interactions are influential, that we can be conditioned to many different things, and that I may be more heavily influenced by the chemical processes in my brain than I might like. I will also remember that I cannot always remember to think of these things all the time, for while I have the wisdom and the will to look at things objectively, I remain basically human and fallible. I may react negatively to stimulus by getting angry and irrational. I must also remember that I must be able to understand myself before I can understand others. I must be able to forgive myself before I can forgive others.
I apologize that my psychology oriented blog has become a philosophical monologue. That in itself indicated how new the field of psychology is and how much further it has to go. I wonder if we, being human, can ever fully understand ourselves. I wonder if it is an unsolvable paradox or even a paradox at all. I wonder if we humans can even appreciate the full meaning of the question, "What are we?"
In this new point of view, we can treat the human mind as a black box. It receives input from various sources including genetics and sensory signals. The input is not only processed by a currently unknown mechanism, but also stored in the mechanism itself, changing the process. Think back to grade school. Most of us have had the experience of "finding the rule" games in math. There's a list of numbers on one side of a black box, and another list on the other side. Each number on the input side is paired with another number on the output side. At the bottom of both lists is usually a space for the student to write the rule that produces the output from a given input. The goal for the field of psychology then becomes to figure out what the basic rule is that governs the process of assimilation and the behavior that results from it.
This goal may seem completely unattainable, but isn't it the same goal psychology has been pursuing since the beginning? The only real difference is that I take into account the fact that every individual is different, and has different experiences. My POV would encourage isolating the genetic components in specific, while recognizing that some genetic patterns are not universal. It is, of course, the universal genetic roots we are looking for in the long run -- the parts that are common to all people. Really, this is no different from any other approach to studying psychology. Mainly, I wish to emphasize creating unity in the field.
Each of the different theories within psychology seem to be better at some things than others. This has been a simple fact of life for a long time, especially apparent to the counseling profession. Counselors have been playing mix and match with their techniques and therapies in order to provide the best service to their clients. Cognitive for depression, behavioral for addiction, psychodynamic for dissociation disorders and so on. Why would the predictions of one theory work for some things and not others if it weren't incomplete? Why do we keep old theories around if they don't work for everything? Why haven't we integrated the different approaches yet? I could be wrong, but I suspect it's because researchers enter the field with a "pet" theory that makes the most sense to them, and they ignore the other approaches in their research. It's time for that to end. We need to trim off the ideas that don't work or don't explain anything and fill the gap with information that does the job. The field of psychology is less the mountain of knowledge that is physics and more like a slice of swiss cheese. We don't know much and what we do know has holes.
If we can accurately identify and categorize the inputs and outputs possible in a human life, we may be able to get a glimpse of the underlying rules that govern our species. Not only that, but, given a certain set of inputs, gained from a study of an individual's life, we can begin to predict behavior patterns more accurately and consistently. We may even gain a fundamental knowledge of the ailments and antisocial behaviors and so on that plague our existence. By looking at a life as an accumulation of inputs to an individual, we can see more clearly what is really going on in the brain. This approach will not destroy older research, but place it in a new light. We'll consider the events outside of the experiments themselves to account for anomalies in the data and learn more thoroughly why one person will express a certain behavior and another will not. We won't only gain insights into personalities, but into all the ways we group particular behaviors and interactions. I look forward to applying in parallel the different theories.
Perhaps we will even be able to create a system by which we can make some careful generalizations by which we can treat the most common of ailments. Whether or not this point of view becomes a popular one, I will look at all the research I am involved with and all the people I meet with this idea in mind. I will remember that one's past influences one's future, that we all think differently and sometimes incorrectly. I will remember that all our interactions are influential, that we can be conditioned to many different things, and that I may be more heavily influenced by the chemical processes in my brain than I might like. I will also remember that I cannot always remember to think of these things all the time, for while I have the wisdom and the will to look at things objectively, I remain basically human and fallible. I may react negatively to stimulus by getting angry and irrational. I must also remember that I must be able to understand myself before I can understand others. I must be able to forgive myself before I can forgive others.
I apologize that my psychology oriented blog has become a philosophical monologue. That in itself indicated how new the field of psychology is and how much further it has to go. I wonder if we, being human, can ever fully understand ourselves. I wonder if it is an unsolvable paradox or even a paradox at all. I wonder if we humans can even appreciate the full meaning of the question, "What are we?"
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Problem with Our Schools (and a solution)
Alternate Title: Going Through the Motions
I find it interesting how we all end up jumping through hoops for a good chunk of our lives. It's what we're trained to do from grade-school on up. Do your homework, get the grade, and move on. How many of us actually stop to think about what we're doing? How many of us are not robots?
American life has been divided up into pretty categories, all neatly ordered and simple. You're born into the world in a nice hospital and more or less looked after for a few years. Then you get thrown into school where you're taught to read and write and follow directions. Your teachers blithely pass you on to the next grade whether you earned it or not. Maybe your ignorance catches up with you, maybe it doesn't. Chances are, sometime around high school, you get a job. Maybe that one doesn't work out, or you'd like a better job. This is the time you finally get to make a decision about your life. Do you work, or do you go to college? College enrollment rates for young adults 18-24 years of age are still below 40%. Let's say you're one of those lucky 40%. Now you get to choose where to go to school and what subject to study. Oh goody. If you're like many Americans, you have a limited income, small chance of a scholarship, and a limited distance you can travel from home. After that, there are only so many programs available to you. You're bound to be interested in some of the same things your parents were; you want to make sure you'll have a decent income. After you've chosen a major, you must follow a set program to achieve your major. There is often very little room for electives, and you might choose a minor with its own program that takes up all the elective space. While in college, you're supposed to meet your spouse. You get married after school. Hopefully you get a job in your field. You work for a company for a few years: 30, 40. Maybe you get bored with that company halfway through and go somewhere else. You retire, and live out the rest of your life in a small home where you pursue a few hobbies you never had time for before. Maybe your kids will send you to a nursing home when you get senile. And then you die.
I know it's not a simple as that but it's a good model for the general form of things. Why must we all follow this form? Granted, there are actually some written laws about some parts of it. I'm not saying those should be changed. I firmly believe that everyone should be educated. How we're educated, on the other hand, needs to change. Parents, explore the world with your children. Encourage their curiosity. Try to see the world through their eyes and feel their discoveries through them. You might even learn something yourself. Children should know basic things about the natural world, how to count, the alphabet, and how to stay out of trouble by the time they enter school. Try to start them on reading and maybe even writing. Read stories to them at night. Listen to music. Maybe introduce them to simple musical instruments. Do all of this before kindergarten.
After your children are in kindergarten, try to make school fun for them. Let them invite their friends over. Talk to them about what they learned and expand on it with them. Get them to think about the applications of what they learn. Emphasize the things they learn about the natural world around them and try to downplay the things they learn about their society. Crazy as it seems, talking too much about the human constructions of life is probably harmful in the long run, causing your children to be less able to handle the world they live in. Concentrate instead on more local relationships. Friendship. How to behave in a social setting. Getting to know the people of the community rather than the political aire of the community in general. Avoid political anything with your children early on. Let them have fun, and let them learn to like people for their individual merits without categorizing them too much. We are all people and every person is different. Enjoy the different flavors and learn to not hate people with ideas different from yours. Lead by example, for your children are still looking to you for guidance at this early stage in their life.
Early grade school is certainly a big deal. It should help teach our children how to learn, how to be good people, and how to survive in an academic setting. Later in grade school, we can start building on the basic ideas already covered, hopefully without fear of too much hardship along the way. In theory, the children have already learned how to learn, in a general sense. The general form of the education system has this right. Increase complexity with time. But one thing that needs improvement is the way we present these new ideas to the children. We are currently shoving it down their throats in concentrated hunks so that they may pass their exams. Enforcing rote regurgitation of material matched to standardized tests so that each particular school will appear to be up to snuff. There's no standardized way of keeping track of whether or not a child under stands the material. As long as he or she can regurgitate the information on paper, that's good enough. This is the wrong approach to education. Grading scales have been made easier for the teachers to record on. Subjects have been simplified and watered down so that we can introduce them earlier. We manufacture "extra credit" and busy work so our students can appear to be doing well even if they don't understand the basic construction of an idea. We advance our students far past where they are mentally ready to be simply in order to say that our particular school has a good pass rate.
I propose a new system of advancement for early schooling. One which utilizes an individualization of education while remaining within the bounds of our current infrastructure. Let's use for example the subject of math, that being a very easy subject to track progress in. very early, a child is taught to count, then to add, then to subtract, and later to multiply and divide. We already have a very well thought out system for this. What we don't have is any incentive beyond the current grading system for a student to do well at it. Often we use computers and separate classes by ability already in our school systems. Why not employ these types of systems exclusively and abolish the idea of segregated age groups? When a child has learned to count, and can pass a test of counting up to 100 or so, then we advance him/her to adding. We teach adding until we are sure the child grasps that all types of numbers can be added, and that it doesn't matter how big the numbers are that you are adding. Most important, teach the child that it is easy and never tell them that you are "just getting to the hard part". Telling a child that something is difficult is a self-fulfilling prophesy. They form mental barriers of a sort that make learning the concept more difficult, simply because they have a preconceived notion that it will be difficult. If the child is genuinely having trouble with a concept, there isn't so much pressure about advancing to a particular point, given the structure of the system. Remember earlier when I discussed encouraging children to embrace each others differences. If social problems arise because a child isn't doing well in a particular area, there would already be in place some guideline of how to handle the situation. Since such problems are frowned upon across the board, a child that is caught pointing out differences in a negative fashion will be more likely to feel guilt over violating a basic rule. In this fashion, children can advance as they are ready across the whole spectrum of subjects.
The above outlined system works well for early grade school, as most of the basic material is standardized across the spectrum. Later in education, however, subjects are not as cut and dried as we might hope. Social studies breaks up into the various social sciences and history courses. Science breaks up into physics, chemistry, and biology and so on. Math eventually breaks into statistics and calculus. English breaks into literature and composition. On top of that, other subjects entirely are added. Subjects like trades and foreign languages (which will be discussed later). You the reader may actually be encountering this stage in education, or you may be well beyond it. In any case, it's probably a time in your life that you remember well. If you have done well in math, by this point, you have a little more freedom to choose a specialty. You should be encouraged to take a wide variety of courses on various divisions of the subject, but not necessarily required to. Perhaps you've not done so well in English. It's no big deal because the courses are ordered in succession of themselves, not grouped by what age you should be by the time you get to them. By hearing about the specializations in a subject, you might be more motivated to advance in the background information. Optimally, you've already been brought up to have a curiosity towards advancing your own knowledge. Furthermore, you would no longer be constrained to particular class times and ordered required curriculum. There should be a minimum level in all subjects which you must reach to leave school, but there should be no particular time frame in which you must achieve these levels. One should be allowed to concentrate on more difficult subject matter in quantities that are easy to swallow without choking. This isn't to say that time management should fall by the wayside. A system like this would eventually require even more time management skill. You'd have to manage your time very carefully in order to graduate. The occasional timed test and other work with a due date is also an important part of school.
Logistically, such a fluid system sounds like utter chaos. Students going where they please when they please and advancing unevenly through the levels of a subject seems a quite disruptive system. To rectify this confusion, I propose a cyclical modularized system of teaching in which a student may enter and exit, and even take holidays from a level of a subject. This system would allow teachers to work year round teaching only bits and pieces that absolutely require a human teacher and acting as adviser the rest of the time. A teacher could for instance schedule particular lectures in which the student may or may not attend. The lecture would cover an entire item in one class and be closed to students that miss the beginning. Projects and papers may be assigned in the same way. Students that show up for the beginning of a project or assignment are required to continue attending meetings at a particular time slot for the duration of the particular project. Papers may be assigned on particular dates and due on specified dates in the future. In the mean time, material is presented in conglomerate form that the students direct on their own. At such a time as the student feels confident in his/her abilities in a subject, they may take an exit exam to receive credit for the course. Teachers may set up any system they like for the exam itself but should keep in mind the comprehension of the student as the deciding factor in grading it. Students should be encouraged to score as high as possible the first time they take the exam, but should also be given the option to improve their score with further study. Remember, the object is comprehension, not regurgitation. This academic playground of a setting could smoothly transition a student from High-School to College. Emphasis throughout the process is placed on individual choice and comprehension.
Here's an aside on foreign languages. Children learn their first language very early in life, starting at about 1.5 to 3 years. The brain is practically wired just for learning language in those very early years. Why not capitalize on that and teach our children to be multi-lingual from a very early age? It's been proven to aid in learning new languages later in life as well. Why handicap them by waiting to start them on a new language until they're in their teens? The same is true with music, which is nearly if not fully a language unto itself. There are stages in the development of the brain that facilitate the learning of different instruments at different times. Why restrict your child's capacity for learning by introducing things outside of the prime time to learn them? Take full advantage of the developmental stages of the brain and enhance everything that your child will be capable of.
Let's now assume that you've advanced through college or at least high school and have entered the full time workforce. Chances are you work for somebody else, making a set amount of money for any given period. Have you ever thought what it would be like to operate on your own? Start your own business? All through school, and especially in business programs, we are taught to work hard and get a piece of paper that tells others we worked hard, so that we can get a good job with a retirement plan. Well that's all fine and dandy if you want to be wrung out like a dirty rag and discarded for a new one on down the road. Hard work can only get you so far in life. There is a saying I like to cite to describe this. "Work smarter, not harder." I say no more of this grooming people to be drones in a factory. We have robots for that. People need to be employed where they can do the most good, advancing society. Now, I realize that some people are better as drones, or doing manual labor tasks. What would the world be without plumbers? How would we know how to manage our businesses without accountants? There are big idea people, like Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison, and there are little idea people, like the people that design the tread on tires or the garbage man that optimizes his performance by holding on the side of the garbage truck in a particular way. The point is that when we train people to do a particular job in a particular way, and expect them to regurgitate exactly the method we've shown them, we leave no room for improvement, no place to advance. You should take a look around you. Right now. What are you doing? Who told you to do it that way? Can you make it better? Many of the world’s most groundbreaking inventions were made by people goofing around in their homes (think: light bulb, airplane, telephone). Why can't you, too, be an inventor? That's not the only way we're trained to be automatons. The number of highly educated people on the Forbes list and in Inc. Magazine is incredibly small. Maybe they're doing something right. Something that isn't taught in school. In today's move toward DIY manufacturing and emphasis on the small business, you really need to pay attention to what's going on around you. Granted, not everyone can be the boss of a company. Not everybody wants to. The more thinking you do about the things you see around you, the more valuable you will be to the people making things happen.
Now you've worked a good number of years, been valuable to your boss, or even been the boss. Now you want to settle down and retire. You've got a new project in mind, and you need some years off from regular work to get it accomplished. Unfortunately, by this time, social security may be broken; perhaps your savings is looking a little pitiful. Maybe the stock you invested in has failed to increase in value. Don't despair. That project of yours may still be valuable. Hopefully, you've also invested in other assets. In all honesty, since I'm not at that point in my own life, I'm not really sure how I would handle it. There's always a way to keep on going, so let's leave it at that for now.
I know what you're thinking. I've left my ideas incomplete. Well, that's partially the point here. I want you to do your own thinking. I want you to develop your own ideas and make your own way. Don't act out of desperation; don't think you're forced to live one particular way. Whatever your goals and motivations are, there's always a way to follow your dreams. All you've got to do is go out there and do it. This here that you're about to finish reading is my way of doing that. I'm putting this out there in the hope that people will see it and start to think. I'm writing this just for you, whoever you may be, because I know I have great things in me, and I know you have great things in you. Don't simply go through the motions of living your life. Get off your ass and do something great!
I find it interesting how we all end up jumping through hoops for a good chunk of our lives. It's what we're trained to do from grade-school on up. Do your homework, get the grade, and move on. How many of us actually stop to think about what we're doing? How many of us are not robots?
American life has been divided up into pretty categories, all neatly ordered and simple. You're born into the world in a nice hospital and more or less looked after for a few years. Then you get thrown into school where you're taught to read and write and follow directions. Your teachers blithely pass you on to the next grade whether you earned it or not. Maybe your ignorance catches up with you, maybe it doesn't. Chances are, sometime around high school, you get a job. Maybe that one doesn't work out, or you'd like a better job. This is the time you finally get to make a decision about your life. Do you work, or do you go to college? College enrollment rates for young adults 18-24 years of age are still below 40%. Let's say you're one of those lucky 40%. Now you get to choose where to go to school and what subject to study. Oh goody. If you're like many Americans, you have a limited income, small chance of a scholarship, and a limited distance you can travel from home. After that, there are only so many programs available to you. You're bound to be interested in some of the same things your parents were; you want to make sure you'll have a decent income. After you've chosen a major, you must follow a set program to achieve your major. There is often very little room for electives, and you might choose a minor with its own program that takes up all the elective space. While in college, you're supposed to meet your spouse. You get married after school. Hopefully you get a job in your field. You work for a company for a few years: 30, 40. Maybe you get bored with that company halfway through and go somewhere else. You retire, and live out the rest of your life in a small home where you pursue a few hobbies you never had time for before. Maybe your kids will send you to a nursing home when you get senile. And then you die.
I know it's not a simple as that but it's a good model for the general form of things. Why must we all follow this form? Granted, there are actually some written laws about some parts of it. I'm not saying those should be changed. I firmly believe that everyone should be educated. How we're educated, on the other hand, needs to change. Parents, explore the world with your children. Encourage their curiosity. Try to see the world through their eyes and feel their discoveries through them. You might even learn something yourself. Children should know basic things about the natural world, how to count, the alphabet, and how to stay out of trouble by the time they enter school. Try to start them on reading and maybe even writing. Read stories to them at night. Listen to music. Maybe introduce them to simple musical instruments. Do all of this before kindergarten.
After your children are in kindergarten, try to make school fun for them. Let them invite their friends over. Talk to them about what they learned and expand on it with them. Get them to think about the applications of what they learn. Emphasize the things they learn about the natural world around them and try to downplay the things they learn about their society. Crazy as it seems, talking too much about the human constructions of life is probably harmful in the long run, causing your children to be less able to handle the world they live in. Concentrate instead on more local relationships. Friendship. How to behave in a social setting. Getting to know the people of the community rather than the political aire of the community in general. Avoid political anything with your children early on. Let them have fun, and let them learn to like people for their individual merits without categorizing them too much. We are all people and every person is different. Enjoy the different flavors and learn to not hate people with ideas different from yours. Lead by example, for your children are still looking to you for guidance at this early stage in their life.
Early grade school is certainly a big deal. It should help teach our children how to learn, how to be good people, and how to survive in an academic setting. Later in grade school, we can start building on the basic ideas already covered, hopefully without fear of too much hardship along the way. In theory, the children have already learned how to learn, in a general sense. The general form of the education system has this right. Increase complexity with time. But one thing that needs improvement is the way we present these new ideas to the children. We are currently shoving it down their throats in concentrated hunks so that they may pass their exams. Enforcing rote regurgitation of material matched to standardized tests so that each particular school will appear to be up to snuff. There's no standardized way of keeping track of whether or not a child under stands the material. As long as he or she can regurgitate the information on paper, that's good enough. This is the wrong approach to education. Grading scales have been made easier for the teachers to record on. Subjects have been simplified and watered down so that we can introduce them earlier. We manufacture "extra credit" and busy work so our students can appear to be doing well even if they don't understand the basic construction of an idea. We advance our students far past where they are mentally ready to be simply in order to say that our particular school has a good pass rate.
I propose a new system of advancement for early schooling. One which utilizes an individualization of education while remaining within the bounds of our current infrastructure. Let's use for example the subject of math, that being a very easy subject to track progress in. very early, a child is taught to count, then to add, then to subtract, and later to multiply and divide. We already have a very well thought out system for this. What we don't have is any incentive beyond the current grading system for a student to do well at it. Often we use computers and separate classes by ability already in our school systems. Why not employ these types of systems exclusively and abolish the idea of segregated age groups? When a child has learned to count, and can pass a test of counting up to 100 or so, then we advance him/her to adding. We teach adding until we are sure the child grasps that all types of numbers can be added, and that it doesn't matter how big the numbers are that you are adding. Most important, teach the child that it is easy and never tell them that you are "just getting to the hard part". Telling a child that something is difficult is a self-fulfilling prophesy. They form mental barriers of a sort that make learning the concept more difficult, simply because they have a preconceived notion that it will be difficult. If the child is genuinely having trouble with a concept, there isn't so much pressure about advancing to a particular point, given the structure of the system. Remember earlier when I discussed encouraging children to embrace each others differences. If social problems arise because a child isn't doing well in a particular area, there would already be in place some guideline of how to handle the situation. Since such problems are frowned upon across the board, a child that is caught pointing out differences in a negative fashion will be more likely to feel guilt over violating a basic rule. In this fashion, children can advance as they are ready across the whole spectrum of subjects.
The above outlined system works well for early grade school, as most of the basic material is standardized across the spectrum. Later in education, however, subjects are not as cut and dried as we might hope. Social studies breaks up into the various social sciences and history courses. Science breaks up into physics, chemistry, and biology and so on. Math eventually breaks into statistics and calculus. English breaks into literature and composition. On top of that, other subjects entirely are added. Subjects like trades and foreign languages (which will be discussed later). You the reader may actually be encountering this stage in education, or you may be well beyond it. In any case, it's probably a time in your life that you remember well. If you have done well in math, by this point, you have a little more freedom to choose a specialty. You should be encouraged to take a wide variety of courses on various divisions of the subject, but not necessarily required to. Perhaps you've not done so well in English. It's no big deal because the courses are ordered in succession of themselves, not grouped by what age you should be by the time you get to them. By hearing about the specializations in a subject, you might be more motivated to advance in the background information. Optimally, you've already been brought up to have a curiosity towards advancing your own knowledge. Furthermore, you would no longer be constrained to particular class times and ordered required curriculum. There should be a minimum level in all subjects which you must reach to leave school, but there should be no particular time frame in which you must achieve these levels. One should be allowed to concentrate on more difficult subject matter in quantities that are easy to swallow without choking. This isn't to say that time management should fall by the wayside. A system like this would eventually require even more time management skill. You'd have to manage your time very carefully in order to graduate. The occasional timed test and other work with a due date is also an important part of school.
Logistically, such a fluid system sounds like utter chaos. Students going where they please when they please and advancing unevenly through the levels of a subject seems a quite disruptive system. To rectify this confusion, I propose a cyclical modularized system of teaching in which a student may enter and exit, and even take holidays from a level of a subject. This system would allow teachers to work year round teaching only bits and pieces that absolutely require a human teacher and acting as adviser the rest of the time. A teacher could for instance schedule particular lectures in which the student may or may not attend. The lecture would cover an entire item in one class and be closed to students that miss the beginning. Projects and papers may be assigned in the same way. Students that show up for the beginning of a project or assignment are required to continue attending meetings at a particular time slot for the duration of the particular project. Papers may be assigned on particular dates and due on specified dates in the future. In the mean time, material is presented in conglomerate form that the students direct on their own. At such a time as the student feels confident in his/her abilities in a subject, they may take an exit exam to receive credit for the course. Teachers may set up any system they like for the exam itself but should keep in mind the comprehension of the student as the deciding factor in grading it. Students should be encouraged to score as high as possible the first time they take the exam, but should also be given the option to improve their score with further study. Remember, the object is comprehension, not regurgitation. This academic playground of a setting could smoothly transition a student from High-School to College. Emphasis throughout the process is placed on individual choice and comprehension.
Here's an aside on foreign languages. Children learn their first language very early in life, starting at about 1.5 to 3 years. The brain is practically wired just for learning language in those very early years. Why not capitalize on that and teach our children to be multi-lingual from a very early age? It's been proven to aid in learning new languages later in life as well. Why handicap them by waiting to start them on a new language until they're in their teens? The same is true with music, which is nearly if not fully a language unto itself. There are stages in the development of the brain that facilitate the learning of different instruments at different times. Why restrict your child's capacity for learning by introducing things outside of the prime time to learn them? Take full advantage of the developmental stages of the brain and enhance everything that your child will be capable of.
Let's now assume that you've advanced through college or at least high school and have entered the full time workforce. Chances are you work for somebody else, making a set amount of money for any given period. Have you ever thought what it would be like to operate on your own? Start your own business? All through school, and especially in business programs, we are taught to work hard and get a piece of paper that tells others we worked hard, so that we can get a good job with a retirement plan. Well that's all fine and dandy if you want to be wrung out like a dirty rag and discarded for a new one on down the road. Hard work can only get you so far in life. There is a saying I like to cite to describe this. "Work smarter, not harder." I say no more of this grooming people to be drones in a factory. We have robots for that. People need to be employed where they can do the most good, advancing society. Now, I realize that some people are better as drones, or doing manual labor tasks. What would the world be without plumbers? How would we know how to manage our businesses without accountants? There are big idea people, like Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison, and there are little idea people, like the people that design the tread on tires or the garbage man that optimizes his performance by holding on the side of the garbage truck in a particular way. The point is that when we train people to do a particular job in a particular way, and expect them to regurgitate exactly the method we've shown them, we leave no room for improvement, no place to advance. You should take a look around you. Right now. What are you doing? Who told you to do it that way? Can you make it better? Many of the world’s most groundbreaking inventions were made by people goofing around in their homes (think: light bulb, airplane, telephone). Why can't you, too, be an inventor? That's not the only way we're trained to be automatons. The number of highly educated people on the Forbes list and in Inc. Magazine is incredibly small. Maybe they're doing something right. Something that isn't taught in school. In today's move toward DIY manufacturing and emphasis on the small business, you really need to pay attention to what's going on around you. Granted, not everyone can be the boss of a company. Not everybody wants to. The more thinking you do about the things you see around you, the more valuable you will be to the people making things happen.
Now you've worked a good number of years, been valuable to your boss, or even been the boss. Now you want to settle down and retire. You've got a new project in mind, and you need some years off from regular work to get it accomplished. Unfortunately, by this time, social security may be broken; perhaps your savings is looking a little pitiful. Maybe the stock you invested in has failed to increase in value. Don't despair. That project of yours may still be valuable. Hopefully, you've also invested in other assets. In all honesty, since I'm not at that point in my own life, I'm not really sure how I would handle it. There's always a way to keep on going, so let's leave it at that for now.
I know what you're thinking. I've left my ideas incomplete. Well, that's partially the point here. I want you to do your own thinking. I want you to develop your own ideas and make your own way. Don't act out of desperation; don't think you're forced to live one particular way. Whatever your goals and motivations are, there's always a way to follow your dreams. All you've got to do is go out there and do it. This here that you're about to finish reading is my way of doing that. I'm putting this out there in the hope that people will see it and start to think. I'm writing this just for you, whoever you may be, because I know I have great things in me, and I know you have great things in you. Don't simply go through the motions of living your life. Get off your ass and do something great!
Monday, November 8, 2010
Teaching Material vs, Subject
I wasn't sure I believed it when I first heard that school was teaching a bunch of useless lies. I wasn't sure I didn't believe it. Now, the more I learn, the more I realize that it's not all useless, but most of it is lies. Think back to when you were in school, specifically grade school. I don't have any way of knowing what it was like for anyone else but me, not really; but, there was one thing that strikes me as important now. Everything was taught in absolutes. The only questions allowed were for clarifying the present material, not for understanding the subject. This is an important distinction.
For the duration of this piece, "subject" will refer to the phenomena and perceived problems of a particular area of interest as described and separated by our culture and history. Examples include but aren't limited to "physics", "chemistry", "literature", and "math". Material will refer to the specific concepts and methods taught in schools to try and explain parts of subjects. These must be made separate because the goal of science is to determine one specific set of rules to describe a subject whereas material is simply one of a set of possible explanations for a subject. Basically, the material describes the subject but can still change as a science progresses.
Early in school, subjects are presented to us in terms of the material, using only one book at a time to present the material. Often these books will gloss over the struggles and disparaging viewpoints leading up to a particular discovery or modification of a theory. names are associated with discoveries but the fact that before the discovery, people were working along different lines is completely missed. Think of the discovery of oxygen. That wasn't just the discovery of a particular discreet element, that was the discovery of elements as we think of them today. The discovery of oxygen changed the face of chemistry permanently. We don't waste any time on phlogiston theory in school. Strangely, in similar fashion, Newton's laws were proved to have defects... but because of a deficit in mathematical ability at the time children are able to learn physics, Newtons Laws are still taught as pure fact. (To be honest, the only reason I have any idea about Newton is that my Abnormal Psychology Professor was ranting about it.) Maybe we should look at an even more specific example that many people can relate to. When children are taught how to do long division, they start out with the simple, contrived numbers that always work. Since there aren't really very many of these, they are then taught "remainders". This form sticks around for a while until the children learn to do long division with decimals. After that, remainders simply disappear from the curriculum, never to be seen again. Remainders are not useful outside of a lower grade-school classroom. (In fact, though I haven't looked it up, the concept of "remainders" may be a big part of what makes the "fractions" unit so difficult to learn.) (Edit - I recently discovered a use for remainders. They're important when performing a "mod" problem, such as what day of the week will it be x number of days from now. Honestly though, what grade school kid is going to come across that often enough to matter?)
If I may be so colloquial as to refer to each step of the education process as chapters in a book, each chapter is taught as if it was the end of the book, with very little hint that there might be more. Every time a child learns how to solve a problem without the addendum that the problem isn't really solved, a lie is told. The child may form a mental block on a particular subject because the material known is presented as the end of it. Also, a child is taught to respect the teacher as the authority on the matter without mention that there are higher authorities and even different viewpoints. It's my opinion that this is an important factor in the overall success of an education program. The less a child is encouraged to question, the less the child will question, the fewer answers will be received, the less the child will understand. Is not the purpose of education to promote understanding? Perhaps specific teaching methods are less important than a general teaching philosophy. Instead of teaching to earn a paycheck, perhaps teaching should be done for students to learn. I'm very glad that there are movements in the works to change the philosophy of teaching in ways that are more beneficial to the student.
This is not a new problem, folks. Since I started writing this blog, I've been linked to two different web comics that describe how a good teacher should handle a tough question and how a bad teacher would. I would be interested in knowing how many people got which response given by the teachers in this comic: xkcd. With any luck, I'll be able to do some serious research on some of the hypotheses stated in here. The children really deserve better than we've given them. Our nation is weakened by a weak education program and it's no wonder that the Asian population is taking over our companies. I don't think I've covered everything in this short composition, but the ideas are big and my time is small so I have to settle for presenting it in bits and pieces.
For the duration of this piece, "subject" will refer to the phenomena and perceived problems of a particular area of interest as described and separated by our culture and history. Examples include but aren't limited to "physics", "chemistry", "literature", and "math". Material will refer to the specific concepts and methods taught in schools to try and explain parts of subjects. These must be made separate because the goal of science is to determine one specific set of rules to describe a subject whereas material is simply one of a set of possible explanations for a subject. Basically, the material describes the subject but can still change as a science progresses.
Early in school, subjects are presented to us in terms of the material, using only one book at a time to present the material. Often these books will gloss over the struggles and disparaging viewpoints leading up to a particular discovery or modification of a theory. names are associated with discoveries but the fact that before the discovery, people were working along different lines is completely missed. Think of the discovery of oxygen. That wasn't just the discovery of a particular discreet element, that was the discovery of elements as we think of them today. The discovery of oxygen changed the face of chemistry permanently. We don't waste any time on phlogiston theory in school. Strangely, in similar fashion, Newton's laws were proved to have defects... but because of a deficit in mathematical ability at the time children are able to learn physics, Newtons Laws are still taught as pure fact. (To be honest, the only reason I have any idea about Newton is that my Abnormal Psychology Professor was ranting about it.) Maybe we should look at an even more specific example that many people can relate to. When children are taught how to do long division, they start out with the simple, contrived numbers that always work. Since there aren't really very many of these, they are then taught "remainders". This form sticks around for a while until the children learn to do long division with decimals. After that, remainders simply disappear from the curriculum, never to be seen again. Remainders are not useful outside of a lower grade-school classroom. (In fact, though I haven't looked it up, the concept of "remainders" may be a big part of what makes the "fractions" unit so difficult to learn.) (Edit - I recently discovered a use for remainders. They're important when performing a "mod" problem, such as what day of the week will it be x number of days from now. Honestly though, what grade school kid is going to come across that often enough to matter?)
If I may be so colloquial as to refer to each step of the education process as chapters in a book, each chapter is taught as if it was the end of the book, with very little hint that there might be more. Every time a child learns how to solve a problem without the addendum that the problem isn't really solved, a lie is told. The child may form a mental block on a particular subject because the material known is presented as the end of it. Also, a child is taught to respect the teacher as the authority on the matter without mention that there are higher authorities and even different viewpoints. It's my opinion that this is an important factor in the overall success of an education program. The less a child is encouraged to question, the less the child will question, the fewer answers will be received, the less the child will understand. Is not the purpose of education to promote understanding? Perhaps specific teaching methods are less important than a general teaching philosophy. Instead of teaching to earn a paycheck, perhaps teaching should be done for students to learn. I'm very glad that there are movements in the works to change the philosophy of teaching in ways that are more beneficial to the student.
This is not a new problem, folks. Since I started writing this blog, I've been linked to two different web comics that describe how a good teacher should handle a tough question and how a bad teacher would. I would be interested in knowing how many people got which response given by the teachers in this comic: xkcd. With any luck, I'll be able to do some serious research on some of the hypotheses stated in here. The children really deserve better than we've given them. Our nation is weakened by a weak education program and it's no wonder that the Asian population is taking over our companies. I don't think I've covered everything in this short composition, but the ideas are big and my time is small so I have to settle for presenting it in bits and pieces.
Monday, November 1, 2010
AA Article Becomes Relevant to Psychology in General
I was reading an article in the July edition of WIRED magazine when I began to notice some vague mention of things I've been thinking about for a long time. They caught my attention for a number of relevant reasons. The article is "The Secret of AA" by Brendan I. Koerner, appearing in WIRED "pattern recognition"|Jul2010. The article references several studies and meta-studies of the Alcoholics Anonymous and various alcohol addiction recovery programs. As some of you may know by now, I'm interested in treatment for addicts in particular besides my interest in psychology in general.
In summary, the 12 steps of AA start with admitting loss of control over drinking and consigning oneself to a higher power, then end with a lifelong commitment to helping others through the process. In comparison to other methods (I will loosely conclude based on information contained in the article) AA has a roughly equal effect of reducing alcohol consumption among alcoholics, but a higher percent of members are able to quit completely.
In order to give my readers a better sense of understanding about the thoughts I am having, I'll try to describe the differences between AA and psychologist developed treatment methods. AA covers a broad spectrum of loose ideas and influence patterns (if unintentionally) while most treatments focus on just one cause and effect. For example, one cognitive behavioral therapy teaches addicts to avoid situations that encourage or stimulate them to respond by drinking. A motivational enhancement therapy emphasizes a person's reasons to be sober. AA, on the other hand, targets (again, unintentionally) specifically the parts of the brain affected the most by alcohol abuse. The group setting of AA helps rebuild the prefrontal cortex (helps regulate behavior) and simultaneously operates as an external surrogate system of regulation. Because AA isn't led by a professional, members develop a better sense of kinship with one another; which essentially acts as a more powerful positive peer pressure to stop drinking. The closer the relationships, the more likely the program is to work for a particular individual. Another thing AA does is encourage members to make amends with all the people they've hurt. This greatly reduces stress by relieving and preventing as much guilt as possible. That's the rough version, I encourage you to read the article or do your own research on the matter.
The point of all this, essentially, is to give you a glimpse of a possibility that seems to be oft overlooked. People are different. A one-size-fits-all hat only works because it's adjustable. Psychological treatment is the same way. In clinics, therapists will cycle through various treatment plans outlined by several different theories of psychology because some of them will work for some people, while the same ones won't work at all for others.
That's all well and good, but shouldn't that little bit of data have a greater impact on the direction of research? The way I hear it, scientists across all disciplines take pride in the idea that they are searching for the one all inclusive theory of their field. Usually that means admitting data that was discovered previously. Psychology is a VERY young science. The only math involved is statistics. That said, all the rest of it can be boiled down to a very large group of ideas of which the only evidence for or against is purely statistical (at least in general). The biological model has the distinct benefit of discretely measurable variables. It also has the disadvantage of being nearly impossible to interpret except in a non-specific manner. Neurotransmitters only come in so many flavors but somehow account for all the thoughts we have, both consciously and sub-consciously. None of them seem to have an exclusive purpose. Brain chemistry is as yet too complex to unravel; we've hardly even cracked the genetic code, why should we expect to understand "thought" so precisely?
Maybe now you see the problem. Psychology isn't as simple as cause and effect. It's the accumulation of "genetic predispositions" and "past experiences" in addition to "current circumstances" and "biological influences". Sure, we can loosely associate a particular mental condition with a particular event in the past in cases of PTSD and similar afflictions. We can link impairments to certain genetic anomalies like Huntington's and Down Syndrome. Until we were looking for them, these anomalies were unheard of. PTSD used to be called "shell shock" and "combat fatigue" before we decided it was worth checking out. My experience in such matters is small, to be sure, but it seems to me that there is far too much of the picture still missing to be making many solid conclusions. For example, given two people in similar situations with similar backgrounds, can we say for sure why one has developed Dissociative Identity Disorder and the other has not? Do we need to develop some theory of "mental constitution" to account for the soldiers that DON'T get PTSD? Still our ideas are too vague to have much substance. Even physics is still changing, with new discoveries shocking the whole community often enough to disturb the relatively slow, lumbering beast of popular media on a fairly regular basis.
I find this post getting unbearably long, while outlining a depressingly small amount of my thought. It's also getting late, and I have class tomorrow. Let me summarize to say that the various theories of psychology are very much closer to philosophies than sciences so far as I see it today; and as such, ought to be combined into an all-inclusive philosophy that recognizes the inherent complexity of the system and makes a point of evaluating the interactions between factors rather than trying to separate them. Psycho-dynamics had one big point right: the history influences the present and both influence the future. Biology has it's place; brain chemistry is indicative of abnormality and altering it can prove beneficial. Cognitive theory has high points as well: thinking is important in and of itself. Humanistic and Existential theories make important (if mostly philosophical) points: the individuals and their interactions with others have influence on the individual's thought's and feelings. Behaviorists rely on immediate observables like environmental factors (c'mon, did we REALLY ever believe that the environment isn't a BIG influence?). There's plenty more but I think you get the point.
You can take Tarzan out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of Tarzan.
In summary, the 12 steps of AA start with admitting loss of control over drinking and consigning oneself to a higher power, then end with a lifelong commitment to helping others through the process. In comparison to other methods (I will loosely conclude based on information contained in the article) AA has a roughly equal effect of reducing alcohol consumption among alcoholics, but a higher percent of members are able to quit completely.
In order to give my readers a better sense of understanding about the thoughts I am having, I'll try to describe the differences between AA and psychologist developed treatment methods. AA covers a broad spectrum of loose ideas and influence patterns (if unintentionally) while most treatments focus on just one cause and effect. For example, one cognitive behavioral therapy teaches addicts to avoid situations that encourage or stimulate them to respond by drinking. A motivational enhancement therapy emphasizes a person's reasons to be sober. AA, on the other hand, targets (again, unintentionally) specifically the parts of the brain affected the most by alcohol abuse. The group setting of AA helps rebuild the prefrontal cortex (helps regulate behavior) and simultaneously operates as an external surrogate system of regulation. Because AA isn't led by a professional, members develop a better sense of kinship with one another; which essentially acts as a more powerful positive peer pressure to stop drinking. The closer the relationships, the more likely the program is to work for a particular individual. Another thing AA does is encourage members to make amends with all the people they've hurt. This greatly reduces stress by relieving and preventing as much guilt as possible. That's the rough version, I encourage you to read the article or do your own research on the matter.
The point of all this, essentially, is to give you a glimpse of a possibility that seems to be oft overlooked. People are different. A one-size-fits-all hat only works because it's adjustable. Psychological treatment is the same way. In clinics, therapists will cycle through various treatment plans outlined by several different theories of psychology because some of them will work for some people, while the same ones won't work at all for others.
That's all well and good, but shouldn't that little bit of data have a greater impact on the direction of research? The way I hear it, scientists across all disciplines take pride in the idea that they are searching for the one all inclusive theory of their field. Usually that means admitting data that was discovered previously. Psychology is a VERY young science. The only math involved is statistics. That said, all the rest of it can be boiled down to a very large group of ideas of which the only evidence for or against is purely statistical (at least in general). The biological model has the distinct benefit of discretely measurable variables. It also has the disadvantage of being nearly impossible to interpret except in a non-specific manner. Neurotransmitters only come in so many flavors but somehow account for all the thoughts we have, both consciously and sub-consciously. None of them seem to have an exclusive purpose. Brain chemistry is as yet too complex to unravel; we've hardly even cracked the genetic code, why should we expect to understand "thought" so precisely?
Maybe now you see the problem. Psychology isn't as simple as cause and effect. It's the accumulation of "genetic predispositions" and "past experiences" in addition to "current circumstances" and "biological influences". Sure, we can loosely associate a particular mental condition with a particular event in the past in cases of PTSD and similar afflictions. We can link impairments to certain genetic anomalies like Huntington's and Down Syndrome. Until we were looking for them, these anomalies were unheard of. PTSD used to be called "shell shock" and "combat fatigue" before we decided it was worth checking out. My experience in such matters is small, to be sure, but it seems to me that there is far too much of the picture still missing to be making many solid conclusions. For example, given two people in similar situations with similar backgrounds, can we say for sure why one has developed Dissociative Identity Disorder and the other has not? Do we need to develop some theory of "mental constitution" to account for the soldiers that DON'T get PTSD? Still our ideas are too vague to have much substance. Even physics is still changing, with new discoveries shocking the whole community often enough to disturb the relatively slow, lumbering beast of popular media on a fairly regular basis.
I find this post getting unbearably long, while outlining a depressingly small amount of my thought. It's also getting late, and I have class tomorrow. Let me summarize to say that the various theories of psychology are very much closer to philosophies than sciences so far as I see it today; and as such, ought to be combined into an all-inclusive philosophy that recognizes the inherent complexity of the system and makes a point of evaluating the interactions between factors rather than trying to separate them. Psycho-dynamics had one big point right: the history influences the present and both influence the future. Biology has it's place; brain chemistry is indicative of abnormality and altering it can prove beneficial. Cognitive theory has high points as well: thinking is important in and of itself. Humanistic and Existential theories make important (if mostly philosophical) points: the individuals and their interactions with others have influence on the individual's thought's and feelings. Behaviorists rely on immediate observables like environmental factors (c'mon, did we REALLY ever believe that the environment isn't a BIG influence?). There's plenty more but I think you get the point.
You can take Tarzan out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of Tarzan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)