Posted on 07/31/2013 5:25:21 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Learning/thinking were things that occurred long before machines. Much of the thinking of the past makes what passes for thinking today pale in comparison. In short, we are doing less thinking and more inputting to access “stuff”. Using machines can help us solve the [relatively] simple problems of life (where is Ohio, how do you solve a quadratic equation), but it can’t help us solve “the issues of life.” And where will we be when we no longer have the mental functionality to evaluate the problems we face today?
Look at the candidates we’ve nominated/elected today and the troubles they’ve gotten us into. Are their presence on the political scene the inability of people to access information or to understand the implications of the information they access?
Doing things in an unnecessarily hard way doesn’t make one’s thinking better. If anything it makes it worse, because you’re wasting effort, which certainly isn’t going to help one with the “issues of life”.
You blame the wrong side of the equation when you complain about who has been nominated lately. Look at the rest of the pool. Really when was the last time somebody truly worth nominating even bothered to run? Certainly the last 2 presidential pools were nothing but dead enders I couldn’t muster up any enthusiasm for. It’s not the voters’ fault when a bad candidate comes out of a pool of bad candidates. There is an interesting question there on why nobody worth a crap runs for office anymore, but maybe it’s a good thing, maybe all the smart people have figured out that politics is a terrible job and are in the work force actually producing.
1) If a person 100 years ago had never heard of a computer, or DVR, they could not be expected to know how to install, or program one. If a child of today has no experience with computers, or DVRs, the same is true. Both groups are equally ignorant of the workings of computers and DVRs. The child of today is NOT necessarily smarter than the child of 1912. However you are trying to compare a 1912 child who has never heard of a computer to a child of 2012 who has grown up with computers and therefore already has some knowldege about how they work.
2) BUT, the knowledge of basic math, grammar, geography, history, and speech was/is equally available to both the children of 1912 and the children of 2012. So, your argument is fallacious because the two situations are not equal. IOW A /= B (1st case), but in the 2nd case A = B.
You’re now deliberately missing the point, which has been explained to you.
Yeah, I’m not really addressing the benefit of technology when it comes to eliminating unnecessary “fumbling” with the known. My comments were part of my take on the the overall import of the thread. Students in schools used to be taught in ways that developed critical thinking skills (at the grammar school level this meant things like rote learning, for example). For centuries, this is the way kids were taught. For centuries, thinkers were produced. But now, this type of teaching/learning is dismissed. We have pundits and politicians but not sages and diplomats. The outcome of eliminating these developmental steps the education process is clearly apparent in classrooms today, where students, who can access an answer via Google, for instance, cannot always articulate the reasons why the answer is correct (or any other higher-level thinking on the matter at hand).
As to the issue of recent candidates and the lack of quality among them. The re-election of Obama goes far in making my case. We have a populace of, what are they called, “low information voters” who had no problem sizing up his first term and thought, “Let’s do it again.” Are these folks who didn’t know? Perhaps some. Are these people who just prefer lib. policies? No doubt a large portion of his base was made up of life-long lib losers. Are these people who cannot adequately examine the available information and recognize that we are not being taken to “the happy place” with Obama? Probably more than a few. These are folks who can access information, but not make heads or tails of it. Is this a blip on the radar or a trend? Do you find yourself talking to folks that are simply incapable of reasoning, discussing, disagreeing even without quickly hurting for thoughtful responses?
I see this in the school where I teach all day long. I have many students who are smart, can figure out technology (some develop their own games), they know how to get around the district’s filters so they can Facebook all day long, but what they can’t do is make sense of academic material. And when the material is explained to them, they cannot see how it might affect them. And when suggestions about how it might affect them are brought up, their response is to say, “So what?” I know a lot of that is just teenagers struggling with their education (the same as it ever was), but this “issue of life”—the inability to think is reaching critical mass. I often nudge my colleagues with, “We’re teaching them what to think. Instead, we need to teach them TO think. But I don’t know if my colleagues give this notion too much thought.
Look at your own suggestion: “...but maybe it’s a good thing, maybe all the smart people have figured out that politics is a terrible job and are in the work force actually producing....” Those smart folks who have figured out that politics makes for a terrible job, haven’t been able to figure out that, while they may choose to leave politics alone, politics will not necessarily reciprocate. What will happen when their short-sighted view of politics leads to an ever-increasing confiscation of the goods and capitol they have produced with their own hands? Will they (we) suffer the consequences of such choices with the lack of sufficient critical analysis?
Sorry for the lengthy response. I realize that you and I aren’t necessarily talking about the same thing. And I do realize the advantages of time-saving technology (Hey, I’m uploading on my computer here, aren’t I?) I have seen the substituting of technology for teaching/learning in the classroom that, I fear, is heading us in the wrong direction and, as August approacheth, I must begin to get my game face on to let friend and foe alike know the way things ought to be!
Your interpretation of the elections is just plain wrong. Once anybody starts throwing around “low information voter” they’re blaming the wrong side, look at the “low quality candidates”. Who should people have voted for instead of Obama? Romney who is just as big a socialist as Obama? Bachman who’s clearly a loon and lacks a lot of critical thinking of her own? Ron Paul the Truther (talk about critical thinking issues)? The only one of the candidates I liked at all was Caine, and his bailing once things got tough he fled thus showing his candidacy was actually a book tour. There were NO quality candidates, same in 2008. It’s not the voters fault nobody worth a crap ran, they get to vote for who runs, they don’t get to CHOOSE who runs.
The vast majority of what I learned in school I’ve never used, it doesn’t apply to me, it doesn’t apply to most people. When teenagers are complaining about that they’re probably write. Probably the single most useful class I ever took was typing, math was useful through algebra but nothing after that has ever applied, Latin was probably my second most useful class taught me more English than English class ever did. Probably the least useful class ever was free enterprise, it actually made me dumber, no really the teacher gave a bunch of us the final on the first day of class as an experiment, then we took the same final at the end and I got 4 fewer points.
If you want smart people in politics go ahead, join the race. No good blaming other smart people for choosing productive lives over politics while you yourself produce rather than rule.
And truthfully NOTHING in that test is about critical thinking, we could teach critical thinking just fine in the modern curricula, any problems there are with the method not the content.
I beg to differ. YOU are missing the point. You are trying to compare 2 non-equal pieces of information. IOW people who have never heard of computers (1912) and people who have grown up with computers (2012). A /= B. Those who have seen computers (The Bs of 2012) will do better on the computer test vs those who have never heard of them (the As of 1912.
The other set of people are those with a 1912 8th grade education (Cs) and those with a 2012 8th grade education (Ds). The same information (Math, grammar, geography, history, spelling) is available to all members of both groups. However, the (C) 1912 students test better on the KY test than the (D) 2012 students because the 1912 students are expected to memorize much of the info, rather than to look it up on-line (which they have never heard of in the first place). And their equation will be C = D because they all have access to the same info. If it is a timed test, the Cs will do better than the Ds because they have the info memorized, whereas the Ds have to spend time with their computers to access the info.
No I’m not. And again, already explained to you and you clearly didn’t bother to read it. Go back and read, and bother to understand.
Most impressive are the books on grammar and reading.
The selections chosen always seems to hold my interest.
The arithmetic books give a good insight into daily life. Going into detail on the prices of common every day items.
only one of the candidates I liked at all was Caine...
Probably the single most useful class I ever took was typing, math was useful through algebra but nothing after that has ever applied,...
Probably the least useful class ever was free enterprise, it actually made me dumber, no really the teacher gave a bunch of us the final on the first day of class as an experiment, then we took the same final at the end and I got 4 fewer points.
I guess you didn't learn (or don't use) much spelling, punctuation, or grammar in your line of work. ;^)
Yeah, but these 1912 kids use an I-pad???
Actually no. I’m in software, we push buttons. But even for that stuff that was all in elementary school when most of it was taught. By Jr High we were largely reading bad books, as I said in the part you edited out, I probably learned more English in Latin than English, certainly when it comes to vocabulary 2 year of Latin probably taught me 90% of my polysyllabic vocabulary. And for spelling I’m by and large rescued by the red squiggly lines.
Rc’d in my email yesterday:
Why Seniors Still Need Newspapers
I was visiting my niece last night when I asked if I could borrow a newspaper
“This is the 21st century,” she said. “I don’t waste money on newspapers. Here, use my iPad.”
I can tell you this...that fly never knew what hit him!
They probably didn’t really reflect the time very much at all. I know when the math books I had used money the prices bore no resemblance to the real world, they picked the numbers to make the problem work the way they wanted the students to learn it. I even remember the same thing having different prices in different word problems on the same page, probably because the writers were hungry that day and had a hard time thinking of anything but food.
I quoted the parts that had glaring grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.
Well good for you. Guess that means you’ve conceded all my points and now understand that you’re wrong, since you can’t be bothered to argue them. Nice to know, bye.
I mean that your points are illegible because of your spelling, punctuation, & grammar errors, as well as your run-on sentences. It’s lucky that somebody invented computers and software for you to occupy your time because your communication (and logic) skills are deficient. It’s a shame because your interest and appreciation of Latin proves that you have under-utiized IQ points.
Oh and now it’s on to personal attacks. Yup, clearly someone that knows they’ve lost the argument but just can’t admit it.
LOLOL. I explained why your comparison is fallacious in at least 3 posts. You cannot compare two non-equals (students who know computers vs those who have never heard of them) with all students (1912 and 2012) that have been exposed to English, Math, Government, Civics, Geography, etc. and who should all have a fair shot at the test. You fail to understand.
Let’s try a different example: A Model T Ford pickup and an F150 Ford pickup in a road race. Not fair? Of course not. But 2 Model Ts racing each other, or 2 Model F150s against each other would be a fair race.
Unfortunately, your defense of your argument is so poorly written that it makes no sense. So who has lost the argument? Not I.
Remember, a critique of your written language skills is hardly a personal attack. It’s merely a critique of your language skills.
Go, gently into the night, dear FRiend.
And I explained to you why it wasn’t, but you never bothered to read it. Here it is:
these are things kids have learned that weren’t available to learn before, but the amount of time they have FOR learning has remained constant.
The simple fact is, which you studiously ignore, kids have more stuff they HAVE to learn than they did then, but no more time. And no that wasn’t poorly written, you just didn’t bother to read it.
Remember when you say a person is not using their IQ points that an insult, not a critique. And insults are only used by people that know the facts can’t support them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.