I think it is the motives of the Chinese government that most worries people. The Chinese government certainly doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to stealing things (whether it be piracy on the high seas or piracy in it's own country [regardless of the more recent RIAA/MPAA financial alliance]).
I would like to see the Chinese government insist that their own native businesses release source code (to the public; business, governments, etc) to ensure that there are no dubious security concerns. It would be in character of the Chinese government to play the hypocrite here.
It would usually be easier for them to reimplement the functionality than try to start with undocumented, unsupported source code.
I'm sure they would demand that the source code be fully commented and documented. I'm sure they would also insist on having the engineers explain anything that may be obtuse. If they can't understand the source code to begin with then it would be no use to them in the first place.
Firing them is a risky move in today's legal environment.
I can't speak for other countries or regions, but in Ontario, Canada it is easy and completely legal to fire anybody for any reason (barring obvious human rights violations). Incompetence is a legally and socially accepted reason to fire somebody up here. I doubt if it is much different in the US.
It's in your best interests to use whatever tools are at your disposal to keep them exactly where they're at.
Promoting somebody is the best way to keep somebody where they are at (in the company). Decreasing morale by promoting incompetence is not productive from the managers point of view (of course if most managers where competent than this wouldn't be an issue). A competent manager will be able to improve the morale and performance of employees. There shouldn't even be an issue about firing anybody. Having to even consider firing somebody is a demonstration that Management can't do their jobs effectively. Having somebody want to leave a company is also an example of bad and ineffective management that does nothing to help a manager or its company.
I doubt if there is a conspiracy of scientists, especially considering researchers find it much easier to get money from big businesses like Exxon.
I see more FUD and ignorance coming from the anti-global warming people than from anyone else. Notice how I lost my Karma bonus because I made fun of the op's rant. I'd like to think he was kidding, but it is a meme that the right-wing will demonize everything that they do not agree with to "socialism".
Manmade Global Warming every time and the ONLY solution is the destruction of Western Civilization, replacing the values of the Enlightenment with Socialism and Planning.
I think I've met that meme before. Insightful is the new Funny.
Most businesses cannot afford to have their staff stop working and start managing.
Agreed, but irrelevant. If people are going to be promoted then IMHO it would make sense that you should promote somebody who would be intelligent and competent instead of promoting somebody who is incompetent. Just because an HR person happens to like somebody because they interview well and fit into their prejudice of a Manager doesn't make sense to me. But then again I could be completely wrong.
Sure. MAYBE these people CAN do what they went to school for, but taking such jobs right out of the gate tells me and others that you are incapable.
The sad thing is that a lot of employers also hold this prejudice. Honest people and intelligent people aren't willing to sell themselves with fake resumes, nor can many people who get out of school with massive student loans afford to wait around for an ideal job offer when there are bills to be paid.
I've always found that people often blame the misfortunes of others on personal attributes, and in their hypocrisy they blame their own misfortunes on other people. It's shameful.
Two years doing that - looks like they just can't find a better job. If they didn't find another job elsewhere and they didn't get promoted in their absolutely low level job...well, it doesn't scream 'talent', does it?
As somebody who has done phone (tech) support before I can tell you that companies (i.e. Management) will rarely promote people who are not incompetent. This isn't only my opinion, as I've heard it from others here on Slashdot as well who worked in similar roles.
As for working with scripts it all depends on the company. Microsoft for example is soft on scripts and heavy on having the employee actually try to help the customer. There are many companies like this. The sad fact is that a lot of people who get into non-phone support roles tend to lie on their resumes about experience and get their references to back them up (that's been my experience anyways). So you can be an arm-chair cynic if you wish, but your cynicism hasn't been my reality.
So you seem to be moving into a general point about organizational behavior.
The word seem is appropriate. I was actually thinking about individual biases, prejudices, hypocrisy (i.e. a Scientist implicitly claiming that somebody else's tested hypothesis is not scientific because of the personal characteristics of a researcher is certainly not scientific but rather the antithesis of science), amongst other inherent irrationalities that people tend to have. Yes there is also the problem of group think that goes on, but that was not and is not a specific issue with me in this case. My focus (however implicit it may be) is on the individual.
As for Pournelle's Iron Law I have stated before that it doesn't carry any weight with me because it is an untested proposition. It's quaint and possibly true, but until I see any (scientific) evidence justifying it as a scientific "Law" then it is just another sophism. (We've argued this point before).
My own hypothesis is that people's own knowledge of expertise (whether it be in Religion, Mathematics, Politics, English Literature, specific operating systems [i.e. Mac fanboyism], or whatever) will cause those people to have undo and irrational confidence in their beliefs regarding the subject.
Actually your point is a continuation of the anecdote and is rather metaphorical so I could only guess as to what your point is.
To elaborate on my point ("the original idea I was promoting is that a science (or Mathematics) based education does not intrinsically make a person either "scientific" in their daily or professional lives, nor does it necessarily make one more logical.")
The fallacies that many people are using here should be obvious to the objective mind: - Unproven assertions that Mathematics makes people logical (or more logical than they would otherwise be). - An inherent bias of elevating ones knowledge of expertise as being more important than its actual nature and utility - Anecdotal evidence that is irrelevant in disputing my point (i.e. people have given examples of how Mathematics can be used to logically solve Math problems, but they fail to demonstrate how Mathematics makes people think logically outside of purely Mathematical endeavors) - Argumentum ad hominem - Appeals to authority... and I could probably think of a few more logical fallacies that many of these Mathematics fanboys have used against my arguments, but that would require re-reading all of the replies which I am not in a position to do.
I will however give just one (of many examples that I can think of just off the top of my head) of how professional Scientists with doctors degrees are illogical. There were these two biology students who discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by a certain bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). Medical journals refused to publish their findings because their findings contradicted the presumed mythology at the time. When these students presented their findings during a lecture at least one scientist said that they weren't believable because they did not sound like scientists. Many years later (after they got their PhD's) they won a Noble Prize for their findings.
I'm not a Scientist nor a Mathematician and so I'm sure my opinion would be dismissed as illogical speculation because I am not "disciplined" enough to make a judgment. However, my observations have been that the more a person knows about Mathematics, the more illogical a person becomes. The weak and unscientific arguments used by these Mathematics fanboys along with their use of logical fallacies only re-enforces my belief that Mathematicians are illogical.
It doesn't really matter if they can see or not because all soldiers look pretty much alike (green in the countryside, brown in the desert, and white in the arctic). You basically just have to know which way to shoot.
We need to make sure that someone can be held personally responsible for the actions of the killer robots. Political leaders, preferably, but realistically it's more likely to be line military personnel.
The people who have the technology to build any type of advanced A.I. robots won't be subject to any war crimes. The winners in these types of military/political/economic battles never are.
If you are reading this, then I have to congratulate you on being the one person here (so far, who responded to my posts) who actually even bothered to give an example, much less a good example of why and how Mathematics may be useful. I wish other posters would be less zealous and ideological in their arguments (and in some cases Trollish).
Yes I agree with your examples. Your examples however are directly related to Mathematics. The argument delves in general problem solving skills. I was just reading, for example, about a poster who gave a link to various financial advisers who gave their ratings on AIG as a stock pick over the last few months. Many of these advisers rated it as a Buy or a Top Pick. As a person who has taken accounting and economics courses I know that a lot of advanced Mathematics may be involved in decision making. I would argue however that these tools (or these analysts mathematics oriented education) were not helpful to these financial analysts in problem solving or even understanding the inherent instability of AIG. At the very least they did not have all the variables to make an approximation of the difficulties involved with AIG (or many of the hundreds of other large and respected companies that failed over the years), and yet they boldly made inaccurate proclamations.
The argument that very many people are presenting here is that Mathematics will somehow make people problem solvers. The half-truth is that Mathematics will make people problem solvers in the endeavor of Mathematics. And Math does not inherently make people smart. Knowing Mathematics makes people smart at Mathematics. I myself have met Mathematicians (people who have Masters degrees and above) who are quite stupid.
Aside from these theoretical arguments, how will taking a course in organic chemistry be useful to a doctor (in some sort of tangible manner). For example how will knowing organic chemistry help a doctor in doing open heart surgery or giving a patient a physical, or even in prescribing drugs?
I remember a high school Latin teacher stating that Latin was important in many, many different fields including the biological sciences (because many of terms in biology are derived from Latin). If this is true then I would presume taking a course in Latin would be important to becoming a doctor as well.
It would be helpful for example to know infinite series to understand how some functions are calculated in real life ( more or less ). Understanding the costs of using some operations and functions will certainly help you to design a better code.
Yes there are many instances when Math can be utilitarian in the "real world". The problem I am addressing is the fact that there are a lot of Math zealots who believe that Mathematics (and more specifically the understanding of more "advanced" Mathematics like algebra or trigonometry or calculus) is either important or useful to know for the average person.
I have heard lots of arguments about how I am wrong but nobody offers a shred of evidence. One AC even commented that: 1. Evidence is not necessary and that my thinking is illogical. 2. And this unhelpful Troll:
Third, it's fairly elementary knowledge, to a computer scientist, that designing a correct algorithm *is* a mathematical problem and it's also elementary knowledge, to a mathematician, that all forms of math have vast areas of common strategies and techniques. It's your obligation to learn this stuff if you want to play with the big kids, not ours to repeat trivial observations.
Another AC commented:
the concept of figuring out the steps involved in anything doesn't come from english class or history class and i fear in a lot of cases it's not coming from parents.
I wonder why I am getting so many illogical and irrational comments from people who purport that Mathematics is important in problem solving. It certainly doesn't do anything for the cause.
It seems as though exercises of the mind to help prepare you for such cases (and yes, they DO crop up) are more beneficial than you think.
You seem to be putting too much emphasis behind understanding theory than dealing with the actual reality. I would argue that spending a limited resource (time) practicing swerving amongst obstacles in a professional setting would be more beneficial than taking the time to understand the math behind it. At any rate ignorant of Math (or just bad at it) never stopped anybody from getting a drivers license or even being a professional driver.
Well first off thanks for responding to my posts. I didn't realize I was replying mainly "against" the same person here (I didn't mean to pick on you lol). In general I think you give pretty good arguments so I didn't feel the need to respond to the minutia of differences I may have had with your other posts. I will eleborate here however:
...but the thing is much of the kind of growth you refer to(if I am not mistaken) involves individuals challenging themselves in new areas at their own pace.
Yes I was actually thinking about this. In general people learn better when they are not under stress. In general I have found that I learn much better when I am not studying (cramming) for a course. I am very much an autodidact in that respect (although I've been through the grind of college, university as well as the military, as well as taking various in-house courses through various employments, etc and so on... so I do have quite a perspective).
I do enjoy a challenge (if a challenge can be thought of as testing or expanding one's limits).
Psychological research does indicated that creativity is most abundant when there are things like indicators of openness to new thinking, fulfilled base needs, etc. The thing is that creativity is useful when it is built on well trained skills. To use an old saying, there is freedom in form. The problem is that form is built by straining out mistakes and aggressive (both positive and negative) feedback.
Your arguments seem to emphasize strain (and pain). As a person who used to work out 3 hours a day (and quite aggressively) I know that "pain" is an indication that you should stop working out. In the medical profession it is traditional to over-work medical residents (and I've heard of at least one study that shows that this only causes residents to make mistakes with patients and does not improve their education). Yes without stress people would be lying in bed all day. There are good forms of stress and bad forms of stress (at this point I don't find it useful to elaborate on the different forms of stress. Let's just say that good forms of stress don't cause anxiety, depression, or failure).
As for the adaptability argument, this is week as well. People for example who have been victims of child abuse have a tendency of being child abusers themselves. So yes while some people may be able to adapt to abuse, one must first think of the efficacy of abusing somebody in the hope of making them a better human being.
In the real world, you only get that one chance, and it can be even more damaging if you fail.
In the real world (I have noticed myself) people often get much more than one chance. It all depends.
At any rate I certainly do having empathy with your concept of challenging oneself. One must put the challenge in perspective. If the "challenge" involves weeding out first year students for example then lets state this outright instead of making it into an apparent ideology.
...but I believe that overcoming adversity is the best thing a person can do.
and
I guess what I'm advocating is that everyone should have ambition, and be curious. Eventually it will come together in some haphazard way and overcoming adversity will prepare anyone for a rich and fulfilling life. The trick is to almost break them but not quite....
Everybody seems to believe in the myth that everybody else should have to go through the same useless trauma as they themselves went through because it somehow made them "a better person". It's the "no pain no gain" fallacy.
It appears that this no-pain-no-gain fallacy is related to the misery-loves-company way of thinking. I do perceive group-think here (not surprising on Slashdot). I am particularly disappointed that people in this discussion seem to be scientifically oriented and educated and yet they are promoting ideologies (generally their ideas of how to obtain the best career candidates through education) rather than presenting arguments through logic or proof.
Let me put it this way, if you're bright and your skills are transitive...
I think you may mean transferable. I'm not being Trollish here, but merely emphasizing the fact that I'm not sure what you mean.
it helps immensely with all kinds of problem solving...works in ALL areas of life.
Again I have noticed an ideology forwarded as argument with absolutely no proof.
Math is the symbolic toolbox to describe it
To quote WordWeb; Math is "A science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement".
I've even heard some ideologues call math a language. Math certainly is a tool that can be used in many professions and areas of life. It is disappointing that people so fanatically attribute Math with Intelligence or with the ability to be Logical.
Yeah, whatever. Either way, less scientific education is clearly not what's called for.
What's called for is "scientific" education that is directly related to the career path of helping a doctor perform heart surgery, repair a damaged artery, etc. Astronomy and organic chemistry are nice to have, but as I've said before being forced to memorize something that you will quickly forget because of its lack of relevance is a useless and bureaucratic exercise.
Because of a math class or because of your failure to do well in said class?
It's obvious to me. It's because of a requirement to pass a Math class for which he had little skill in, and probably no interest or aptitude; hence his major was Japanese which has no direct relation to Mathematics.
Your missing the point. Even though you may go through your life not using all the math you have learned the point is Math helps you sharpen your problem solving skills which is 99% of what a CS student will use.
I've heard this before. It seems to be an urban legend because I have never seen any evidence that Math improves problem solving skills (outside of the field of Mathematics of course) but I've heard many people make that claim. Calculus, for example, may be good for understanding how to maintain a certain speed behind a car while driving in the fog on a curved road, but most people can develop this skill better by actually taking driving lessons. As with a lot of posts here you make your point but don't back it up with any evidence. I wish people who were studying the sciences would be more scientific and logical in their arguments.
I think difficult weed outs are good for the earlier part of your college career.
To paraphrase a high school English teacher who was criticizing my writing "What you think doesn't matter." Which is true, because what you think could be completely bogus, illogical and unfounded. That being said, there have been a few people here talking about "weed out classes". So far I have not seen any evidence as to the efficacy of weed out classes.
It would make more sense to use a course or course more related to a person's major as a weed out course and perhaps use a floor of 90 percent pass on overall evaluation, and then use a bell curve for the rest. If an average of 90 percent on all marked assignments is too high for somebody then the course is either too difficult for the students to comprehend the subject matter or the students aren't smart enough or diligent enough to get those grades. This is especially true in the medical profession where people shouldn't expect a 10% failure rate when being diagnosed or treated by a doctor.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is the motives of the Chinese government that most worries people. The Chinese government certainly doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to stealing things (whether it be piracy on the high seas or piracy in it's own country [regardless of the more recent RIAA/MPAA financial alliance]).
I would like to see the Chinese government insist that their own native businesses release source code (to the public; business, governments, etc) to ensure that there are no dubious security concerns. It would be in character of the Chinese government to play the hypocrite here.
It would usually be easier for them to reimplement the functionality than try to start with undocumented, unsupported source code.
I'm sure they would demand that the source code be fully commented and documented. I'm sure they would also insist on having the engineers explain anything that may be obtuse. If they can't understand the source code to begin with then it would be no use to them in the first place.
Firing them is a risky move in today's legal environment.
I can't speak for other countries or regions, but in Ontario, Canada it is easy and completely legal to fire anybody for any reason (barring obvious human rights violations). Incompetence is a legally and socially accepted reason to fire somebody up here. I doubt if it is much different in the US.
It's in your best interests to use whatever tools are at your disposal to keep them exactly where they're at.
Promoting somebody is the best way to keep somebody where they are at (in the company). Decreasing morale by promoting incompetence is not productive from the managers point of view (of course if most managers where competent than this wouldn't be an issue). A competent manager will be able to improve the morale and performance of employees. There shouldn't even be an issue about firing anybody. Having to even consider firing somebody is a demonstration that Management can't do their jobs effectively. Having somebody want to leave a company is also an example of bad and ineffective management that does nothing to help a manager or its company.
Correction. I said:
I see more FUD and ignorance coming from the anti-global warming people than from anyone else.
"anti-global warming people" should be read as people who through FUD at any evidence of global warming.
I doubt if there is a conspiracy of scientists, especially considering researchers find it much easier to get money from big businesses like Exxon.
I see more FUD and ignorance coming from the anti-global warming people than from anyone else. Notice how I lost my Karma bonus because I made fun of the op's rant. I'd like to think he was kidding, but it is a meme that the right-wing will demonize everything that they do not agree with to "socialism".
Manmade Global Warming every time and the ONLY solution is the destruction of Western Civilization, replacing the values of the Enlightenment with Socialism and Planning.
I think I've met that meme before. Insightful is the new Funny.
Most businesses cannot afford to have their staff stop working and start managing.
Agreed, but irrelevant. If people are going to be promoted then IMHO it would make sense that you should promote somebody who would be intelligent and competent instead of promoting somebody who is incompetent. Just because an HR person happens to like somebody because they interview well and fit into their prejudice of a Manager doesn't make sense to me. But then again I could be completely wrong.
Sure. MAYBE these people CAN do what they went to school for, but taking such jobs right out of the gate tells me and others that you are incapable.
The sad thing is that a lot of employers also hold this prejudice. Honest people and intelligent people aren't willing to sell themselves with fake resumes, nor can many people who get out of school with massive student loans afford to wait around for an ideal job offer when there are bills to be paid.
I've always found that people often blame the misfortunes of others on personal attributes, and in their hypocrisy they blame their own misfortunes on other people. It's shameful.
Two years doing that - looks like they just can't find a better job. If they didn't find another job elsewhere and they didn't get promoted in their absolutely low level job...well, it doesn't scream 'talent', does it?
As somebody who has done phone (tech) support before I can tell you that companies (i.e. Management) will rarely promote people who are not incompetent. This isn't only my opinion, as I've heard it from others here on Slashdot as well who worked in similar roles.
As for working with scripts it all depends on the company. Microsoft for example is soft on scripts and heavy on having the employee actually try to help the customer. There are many companies like this. The sad fact is that a lot of people who get into non-phone support roles tend to lie on their resumes about experience and get their references to back them up (that's been my experience anyways). So you can be an arm-chair cynic if you wish, but your cynicism hasn't been my reality.
So you seem to be moving into a general point about organizational behavior.
The word seem is appropriate. I was actually thinking about individual biases, prejudices, hypocrisy (i.e. a Scientist implicitly claiming that somebody else's tested hypothesis is not scientific because of the personal characteristics of a researcher is certainly not scientific but rather the antithesis of science), amongst other inherent irrationalities that people tend to have. Yes there is also the problem of group think that goes on, but that was not and is not a specific issue with me in this case. My focus (however implicit it may be) is on the individual.
As for Pournelle's Iron Law I have stated before that it doesn't carry any weight with me because it is an untested proposition. It's quaint and possibly true, but until I see any (scientific) evidence justifying it as a scientific "Law" then it is just another sophism. (We've argued this point before).
My own hypothesis is that people's own knowledge of expertise (whether it be in Religion, Mathematics, Politics, English Literature, specific operating systems [i.e. Mac fanboyism], or whatever) will cause those people to have undo and irrational confidence in their beliefs regarding the subject.
Actually your point is a continuation of the anecdote and is rather metaphorical so I could only guess as to what your point is.
To elaborate on my point ("the original idea I was promoting is that a science (or Mathematics) based education does not intrinsically make a person either "scientific" in their daily or professional lives, nor does it necessarily make one more logical.")
The fallacies that many people are using here should be obvious to the objective mind: ... and I could probably think of a few more logical fallacies that many of these Mathematics fanboys have used against my arguments, but that would require re-reading all of the replies which I am not in a position to do.
- Unproven assertions that Mathematics makes people logical (or more logical than they would otherwise be).
- An inherent bias of elevating ones knowledge of expertise as being more important than its actual nature and utility
- Anecdotal evidence that is irrelevant in disputing my point (i.e. people have given examples of how Mathematics can be used to logically solve Math problems, but they fail to demonstrate how Mathematics makes people think logically outside of purely Mathematical endeavors)
- Argumentum ad hominem
- Appeals to authority
I will however give just one (of many examples that I can think of just off the top of my head) of how professional Scientists with doctors degrees are illogical. There were these two biology students who discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by a certain bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). Medical journals refused to publish their findings because their findings contradicted the presumed mythology at the time. When these students presented their findings during a lecture at least one scientist said that they weren't believable because they did not sound like scientists. Many years later (after they got their PhD's) they won a Noble Prize for their findings.
I'm not a Scientist nor a Mathematician and so I'm sure my opinion would be dismissed as illogical speculation because I am not "disciplined" enough to make a judgment. However, my observations have been that the more a person knows about Mathematics, the more illogical a person becomes. The weak and unscientific arguments used by these Mathematics fanboys along with their use of logical fallacies only re-enforces my belief that Mathematicians are illogical.
It doesn't really matter if they can see or not because all soldiers look pretty much alike (green in the countryside, brown in the desert, and white in the arctic). You basically just have to know which way to shoot.
We need to make sure that someone can be held personally responsible for the actions of the killer robots. Political leaders, preferably, but realistically it's more likely to be line military personnel.
The people who have the technology to build any type of advanced A.I. robots won't be subject to any war crimes. The winners in these types of military/political/economic battles never are.
If you are reading this, then I have to congratulate you on being the one person here (so far, who responded to my posts) who actually even bothered to give an example, much less a good example of why and how Mathematics may be useful. I wish other posters would be less zealous and ideological in their arguments (and in some cases Trollish).
Yes I agree with your examples. Your examples however are directly related to Mathematics. The argument delves in general problem solving skills. I was just reading, for example, about a poster who gave a link to various financial advisers who gave their ratings on AIG as a stock pick over the last few months. Many of these advisers rated it as a Buy or a Top Pick. As a person who has taken accounting and economics courses I know that a lot of advanced Mathematics may be involved in decision making. I would argue however that these tools (or these analysts mathematics oriented education) were not helpful to these financial analysts in problem solving or even understanding the inherent instability of AIG. At the very least they did not have all the variables to make an approximation of the difficulties involved with AIG (or many of the hundreds of other large and respected companies that failed over the years), and yet they boldly made inaccurate proclamations.
The argument that very many people are presenting here is that Mathematics will somehow make people problem solvers. The half-truth is that Mathematics will make people problem solvers in the endeavor of Mathematics. And Math does not inherently make people smart. Knowing Mathematics makes people smart at Mathematics. I myself have met Mathematicians (people who have Masters degrees and above) who are quite stupid.
Aside from these theoretical arguments, how will taking a course in organic chemistry be useful to a doctor (in some sort of tangible manner). For example how will knowing organic chemistry help a doctor in doing open heart surgery or giving a patient a physical, or even in prescribing drugs?
I remember a high school Latin teacher stating that Latin was important in many, many different fields including the biological sciences (because many of terms in biology are derived from Latin). If this is true then I would presume taking a course in Latin would be important to becoming a doctor as well.
It would be helpful for example to know infinite series to understand how some functions are calculated in real life ( more or less ). Understanding the costs of using some operations and functions will certainly help you to design a better code.
Yes there are many instances when Math can be utilitarian in the "real world". The problem I am addressing is the fact that there are a lot of Math zealots who believe that Mathematics (and more specifically the understanding of more "advanced" Mathematics like algebra or trigonometry or calculus) is either important or useful to know for the average person.
I have heard lots of arguments about how I am wrong but nobody offers a shred of evidence. One AC even commented that:
1. Evidence is not necessary and that my thinking is illogical.
2. And this unhelpful Troll:
Third, it's fairly elementary knowledge, to a computer scientist, that designing a correct algorithm *is* a mathematical problem and it's also elementary knowledge, to a mathematician, that all forms of math have vast areas of common strategies and techniques. It's your obligation to learn this stuff if you want to play with the big kids, not ours to repeat trivial observations.
Another AC commented:
the concept of figuring out the steps involved in anything doesn't come from english class or history class and i fear in a lot of cases it's not coming from parents.
I wonder why I am getting so many illogical and irrational comments from people who purport that Mathematics is important in problem solving. It certainly doesn't do anything for the cause.
It seems as though exercises of the mind to help prepare you for such cases (and yes, they DO crop up) are more beneficial than you think.
You seem to be putting too much emphasis behind understanding theory than dealing with the actual reality. I would argue that spending a limited resource (time) practicing swerving amongst obstacles in a professional setting would be more beneficial than taking the time to understand the math behind it. At any rate ignorant of Math (or just bad at it) never stopped anybody from getting a drivers license or even being a professional driver.
Well first off thanks for responding to my posts. I didn't realize I was replying mainly "against" the same person here (I didn't mean to pick on you lol). In general I think you give pretty good arguments so I didn't feel the need to respond to the minutia of differences I may have had with your other posts. I will eleborate here however:
...but the thing is much of the kind of growth you refer to(if I am not mistaken) involves individuals challenging themselves in new areas at their own pace.
Yes I was actually thinking about this. In general people learn better when they are not under stress. In general I have found that I learn much better when I am not studying (cramming) for a course. I am very much an autodidact in that respect (although I've been through the grind of college, university as well as the military, as well as taking various in-house courses through various employments, etc and so on... so I do have quite a perspective).
I do enjoy a challenge (if a challenge can be thought of as testing or expanding one's limits).
Psychological research does indicated that creativity is most abundant when there are things like indicators of openness to new thinking, fulfilled base needs, etc. The thing is that creativity is useful when it is built on well trained skills. To use an old saying, there is freedom in form. The problem is that form is built by straining out mistakes and aggressive (both positive and negative) feedback.
Your arguments seem to emphasize strain (and pain). As a person who used to work out 3 hours a day (and quite aggressively) I know that "pain" is an indication that you should stop working out. In the medical profession it is traditional to over-work medical residents (and I've heard of at least one study that shows that this only causes residents to make mistakes with patients and does not improve their education). Yes without stress people would be lying in bed all day. There are good forms of stress and bad forms of stress (at this point I don't find it useful to elaborate on the different forms of stress. Let's just say that good forms of stress don't cause anxiety, depression, or failure).
As for the adaptability argument, this is week as well. People for example who have been victims of child abuse have a tendency of being child abusers themselves. So yes while some people may be able to adapt to abuse, one must first think of the efficacy of abusing somebody in the hope of making them a better human being.
In the real world, you only get that one chance, and it can be even more damaging if you fail.
In the real world (I have noticed myself) people often get much more than one chance. It all depends.
At any rate I certainly do having empathy with your concept of challenging oneself. One must put the challenge in perspective. If the "challenge" involves weeding out first year students for example then lets state this outright instead of making it into an apparent ideology.
Best regards,
UTW
...but I believe that overcoming adversity is the best thing a person can do.
and
I guess what I'm advocating is that everyone should have ambition, and be curious. Eventually it will come together in some haphazard way and overcoming adversity will prepare anyone for a rich and fulfilling life. The trick is to almost break them but not quite....
Everybody seems to believe in the myth that everybody else should have to go through the same useless trauma as they themselves went through because it somehow made them "a better person". It's the "no pain no gain" fallacy.
It appears that this no-pain-no-gain fallacy is related to the misery-loves-company way of thinking. I do perceive group-think here (not surprising on Slashdot). I am particularly disappointed that people in this discussion seem to be scientifically oriented and educated and yet they are promoting ideologies (generally their ideas of how to obtain the best career candidates through education) rather than presenting arguments through logic or proof.
Let me put it this way, if you're bright and your skills are transitive...
I think you may mean transferable. I'm not being Trollish here, but merely emphasizing the fact that I'm not sure what you mean.
it helps immensely with all kinds of problem solving...works in ALL areas of life.
Again I have noticed an ideology forwarded as argument with absolutely no proof.
Math is the symbolic toolbox to describe it
To quote WordWeb; Math is "A science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement".
I've even heard some ideologues call math a language. Math certainly is a tool that can be used in many professions and areas of life. It is disappointing that people so fanatically attribute Math with Intelligence or with the ability to be Logical.
Yeah, whatever. Either way, less scientific education is clearly not what's called for.
What's called for is "scientific" education that is directly related to the career path of helping a doctor perform heart surgery, repair a damaged artery, etc. Astronomy and organic chemistry are nice to have, but as I've said before being forced to memorize something that you will quickly forget because of its lack of relevance is a useless and bureaucratic exercise.
Because of a math class or because of your failure to do well in said class?
It's obvious to me. It's because of a requirement to pass a Math class for which he had little skill in, and probably no interest or aptitude; hence his major was Japanese which has no direct relation to Mathematics.
Your missing the point. Even though you may go through your life not using all the math you have learned the point is Math helps you sharpen your problem solving skills which is 99% of what a CS student will use.
I've heard this before. It seems to be an urban legend because I have never seen any evidence that Math improves problem solving skills (outside of the field of Mathematics of course) but I've heard many people make that claim. Calculus, for example, may be good for understanding how to maintain a certain speed behind a car while driving in the fog on a curved road, but most people can develop this skill better by actually taking driving lessons. As with a lot of posts here you make your point but don't back it up with any evidence. I wish people who were studying the sciences would be more scientific and logical in their arguments.
I think difficult weed outs are good for the earlier part of your college career.
To paraphrase a high school English teacher who was criticizing my writing "What you think doesn't matter." Which is true, because what you think could be completely bogus, illogical and unfounded. That being said, there have been a few people here talking about "weed out classes". So far I have not seen any evidence as to the efficacy of weed out classes.
It would make more sense to use a course or course more related to a person's major as a weed out course and perhaps use a floor of 90 percent pass on overall evaluation, and then use a bell curve for the rest. If an average of 90 percent on all marked assignments is too high for somebody then the course is either too difficult for the students to comprehend the subject matter or the students aren't smart enough or diligent enough to get those grades. This is especially true in the medical profession where people shouldn't expect a 10% failure rate when being diagnosed or treated by a doctor.