FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Split from 'three words' topic





deanhills
bukaida wrote:
Believe in something is a personal idea and usually is harmless. The problem comes when the attitude is " Believe and make others believe". Look at the history, you will find lots of examples.
Well said! Would be great if people could be more tolerant of other people's views. I can't see this happening however while there are people who like to have power and control over others by getting them to agree with them. Either by shaming or clobbering them into agreement, or getting their admiration for their superior point of view. There are also too many "gurus" around trying to convince everyone of their little corner of the truth. By overly focusing on that .05% of the truth, we lose the opportunity of having the balance - 99.05% of the truth revealed to us.
Nameless
deanhills wrote:
By overly focusing on that .05% of the truth, we lose the opportunity of having the balance - 99.05% of the truth revealed to us.

What does that even mean?
deanhills
Nameless wrote:
deanhills wrote:
By overly focusing on that .05% of the truth, we lose the opportunity of having the balance - 99.05% of the truth revealed to us.

What does that even mean?
OK, I don't think anyone can talk about percentages (some do anything from 1% to 10% or more), but it is a fact that we are brainwashed and hypnotized from the moment that we are born. Good example would be kids who are able to see things we can't but as soon as they get into the "learning" system, they get desensitized from using other parts of their brains. By the time we graduate from school, we sometimes don't even know who we are as all of the knowledge comes from a system that may not even be compatible with who we are. Those who do well with the system get to be regarded as brilliant, those who can't adapt to the system because they are incompatible become drop outs or failures. I don't think the traditional education system makes much sense to me as it seems to be indoctrinating everyone with basically the same limited system of information. That is why we probably get so little original thinking. We've been so much brainwashed by other people's thinking, we may not even know what our own thinking is supposed to be.
Bikerman
This argument amuses me, and I hear it many times, so I am lucky I guess Smile

We are supposed (by the arguer) to be stifled by conventional knowledge. Interestingly it usually becomes apparent fairly quickly that the arguer is amazingly free from that conventional knowledge. Indeed the arguer is effectively saying that they remain sufficiently free-thinking to see at least a glimpse of the 'reality' which is being withheld from the rest of us poor saps who read the textbooks to gain that conventional knowledge.

So the proposition seems to be that gaining conventional knowledge somehow inhibits one's facility to discern real and imaginary. This is an odd proposition, and one which would seem to be countered by observation. We don't tend to see brilliant inventions or advances from people who haven't got at least a graduate level education. Oh sure, we did in previous centuries, when there were plenty of new things to discover without requiring big expensive kit, but nowadays it is those with heads stuffed with that conventional knowledge who tend to make the breakthroughs, not those who have convinced themselves that it is all down to a magic sky-fairy, a powerful crystal, an alien intelligence, or a super-intelligent shade of the colour purple.
ocalhoun
Split from Three little words that have pissed so many people off. to keep the original thread on-topic.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
This argument amuses me, and I hear it many times, so I am lucky I guess Smile

We are supposed (by the arguer) to be stifled by conventional knowledge. Interestingly it usually becomes apparent fairly quickly that the arguer is amazingly free from that conventional knowledge. Indeed the arguer is effectively saying that they remain sufficiently free-thinking to see at least a glimpse of the 'reality' which is being withheld from the rest of us poor saps who read the textbooks to gain that conventional knowledge.

So the proposition seems to be that gaining conventional knowledge somehow inhibits one's facility to discern real and imaginary. This is an odd proposition, and one which would seem to be countered by observation. We don't tend to see brilliant inventions or advances from people who haven't got at least a graduate level education. Oh sure, we did in previous centuries, when there were plenty of new things to discover without requiring big expensive kit, but nowadays it is those with heads stuffed with that conventional knowledge who tend to make the breakthroughs, not those who have convinced themselves that it is all down to a magic sky-fairy, a powerful crystal, an alien intelligence, or a super-intelligent shade of the colour purple.
I'm not sure whose post you are referring to. If it is mine, I just can't find the connection. Specifically what argument are you referring to. Nowhere did I say I was stifled by anything. You made that up as you went along. Nor did I refer to "poor saps who read textbooks".

What I did say was that we are trained to only use a small percentage of our brains. If we had a basic education that focused on us using much more of our brains we'd probably produce much differently. Furthermore, originality in learning is discouraged when there is one teaching that has to fit all. Some may do well by it, but others may not do well at all. Particularly those who are more gifted than others. Who knows, maybe a person like Einstein would have done much better much earlier on if he had not been forced to struggle through one-teaching-fits-all during his school years. Lucky that he had a strong self-esteem to carry on regardless of flunking math, otherwise we would not have been able to benefit from his findings.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I'm not sure whose post you are referring to. If it is mine, I just can't find the connection. Specifically what argument are you referring to. Nowhere did I say I was stifled by anything. You made that up as you went along. Nor did I refer to "poor saps who read textbooks".
I merely paraphrased, and I believe I did so accurately - the reader can decide for themselves.
Quote:
What I did say was that we are trained to only use a small percentage of our brains. If we had a basic education that focused on us using much more of our brains we'd probably produce much differently.
As a teacher I can say with some authority that this is baloney. It is not known how much of the human brain is used actively, and we are some way from knowing which parts of the brain are used in different learning activities. Students are not 'trained to only use a small % of the brain' because that would require us to know WHICH parts of the brain are involved, and we don't.

What we DO know is that the idea that we only use a small part of our brains is also baloney. It is based on some basic misunderstandings about basic biology, and an urban myth about only using 10% of the brain which seems to be based on a 1920 speculative news article.
We reqularly use ALL of our brains - this has been demonstrated in numerous scans.

As for a 'basic education that focused on us using much more of our brains' - different individuals use parts of their brains differently, and since we don't, in any case, have good data on which parts those would be, this is meaningless.
Quote:
Furthermore, originality in learning is discouraged when there is one teaching that has to fit all.
Wrong again. One of the first exercises we carry out with any new students is a 'learning assessment'. Amongst other things it gives us data on whether they are 'audible, visual or kinesthetic' learners (ie whether they learn best by listening, watching or doing). This is then used to draw-up individualised learning plans. Originality is positively encouraged - indeed in higher level courses (Level 3 NVQ and above) it is required. Hence the lower level courses contain tasks defined in terms of 'explain', 'list' and 'describe', but higher level courses have tasks defined by terms such as 'assess', 'evaluate', 'compare', 'suggest' etc.
Quote:
Some may do well by it, but others may not do well at all. Particularly those who are more gifted than others.
This is a non-sequitur. Why should the more gifted do worse? It is, in any case, based on a fallacious understanding of education, as I have explained.
Quote:
Who knows, maybe a person like Einstein would have done much better much earlier on if he had not been forced to struggle through one-teaching-fits-all during his school years. Lucky that he had a strong self-esteem to carry on regardless of flunking math, otherwise we would not have been able to benefit from his findings.
And maybe the teaching he had was exactly what he needed to motivate him to succeed alone. Perhaps, had he not been forced to struggle in his early years, he would have become complacent and decided to become a musician instead.

This sort of speculation is not particularly helpful in evaluating current education since things have changed a great deal in the last century.
deanhills
OK, fair enough. I've heard people make speeches about us only using a percentage of our brains, but when I researched it it would appear there are contrary views about it. In absence of real evidence about the percentages, I'd lean in your direction about this, i.e. there is no such thing.

Not all schools encourage originality and undergo the same tests as your school for example. Kudos however to your school for doing so.
Related topics
Abbott and Costello Buy a Computer
Languages
The War of the Worlds
coputers jokes ! this jokes dont post here ...
if you had last 24hours life....
Three Word Story
Harry Potter
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Need critique before site redesign
three word game
why do you post message on this forum??
This Topic
How many times you defecate in a day?
How often do you say those three words?
Three little words that have pissed so many people off.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.