I had the same trouble in high school. I was fine through junior high until the 10th grade, where they started introducing "new math". Essentially, one of those really annoying post-modern theorists took control of the administration in my province and introduced a curriculum where people were supposed to learn through analysis and creativity, rather than through a teleological approach. So the math books all had questions, with no advice, and Buddhist-esque thought problems like, "Analyze the simplification. What do you notice about it that is curious?" There was no process.
While this approach is great for pure mathematics at the graduate school level and extremely useful for generating pupils with mathematical minds (e.g. not pupils who use their other strengths and then wrap math around them -- e.g. using verbal reasoning to understand math, rather than math to understand math), it was terrible for the majority of students in my province who, like me, barely graduated. I went from an A in junior high in math to a D in my last year.
Now, in university, about to graduate with an arts degree, I am returning to math and starting at the basics, with math books written in the 1950s. I just went right to my library and pulled out whatever math book I could find that included basic math. I suggest you do the same. You don't need a tutor! You also don't need any new creative existentialist, post-modern approach to learning math. Just get a book from the 1950s, written in the years of the military industrial complex, where every American was trying to become an astronaut, and read it. Practise some equations. That's all there is to it.
DIY and good luck!
They transfer their need to tinker with electronics and technology to political institutions and society. Instead of becoming a criminal, they yearn for a legal and socially acceptable method to tinker as much as possible with reality without also being hacked by other people, that being libertarianism.
(a) they have the source code (b) the source code is not too obfuscated from 1970s engineering paradigms that it can be understood (c) the guy who originally wrote the system is not dead so that they can talk to him about all the eccentricities of it (d) that it isn't too bulky to cause a slowdown on NASA's emulators when dealing with real time communication (e) there is no funky encryption built into the system to protect it from the Soviets
In terms of cost/benefit analysis, it's probably just cheaper for them to leave the old equipment running than pay millions for consultants to take a look at how to port a 1970s communication system built at the height of the Cold War... to Windows.
Is there any evidence that the Buddhists are anything other than a cult? As much as I feel that China is a dictatorship, I would hate to have a cult operating in my country, whether democratically or not, with the impending threat that they could brainwash my children to believe that the Dalai Lama was a supernatural reincarnation. I feel a tad of empathy for China, in this regard. They are just looking out for their people and protecting them from a potentially dangerous, albeit tragically popular, cult.
Or is there some reason that we should respect the Buddhists as something more (thereby tolerating their "supernatural" claims)?
You have the chance to earn 400 thousand dollars a year and gain "executive control" over the country. All you have to do is set "creationism" to 1 and "evolution" to 0.
"Do you believe in creationism?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe in evolution?"
"No."
That's all it takes. Now, you tell me, would you have the balls to turn down 400 thousand dollars and root access to the USA?
If you think you do, then answer me this again... would you have the/SUBCONSCIOUS/ balls to turn it down. Uncertainty is a very easy thing to potentiate and embrace. And 400 thousand dollars is a lot more certain than "a theory everyone with clue agrees on".;-)
This is all out of Machiavelli's The Prince, btw. I think these candidates are just playing the game with no scruples. While I agree this makes them inherently insane, politics and human nature is, shall we say, not enlightened and most of the people who vote for them are *knocks on wood* insane.
Less entertainment, more work, individuation
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
I have an IQ of 144. In elementary school, I had the privilege of doing several "enrichment" based classes, being taken out of regular class for further experience in focussed areas which correlated to my perceived gift -- this happened to be theatre and language, according to school psychologists. In my last year of elementary school, it was programming. Unfortunately, I never formed any friendships in elementary school. Because of my gift, I was always finished before the other students and found the "banter" boring. While they discussed Power Rangers, I wanted to talk about Leninism and political theory. My math was a little on the iffy side, but this was because I had, at that point in my life, decided that I wanted to be an actor and subconsciously cut out math. To get the attention of a teacher, I tried to get him fired during an administrative interview, which ended up getting me almost expelled from elementary school. It worked. He failed the interview but I, as a child, was just looking for attention the only way I knew how -- having never been socialized into the group dynamic, having never needed any help from other students -- I treated him like a toddler.
In junior high, I cracked a school server and got into heavy trouble. I was also under investigation for some crimes, all of which I got out of. A state psychiatrist believed that I suffered schizophrenia and asked me several times if I heard voices. I told him every time that I did not, but he was very critical -- not understanding why I spent my free time reading about computer engineering and never playing with the other students. The work was just too bloody easy. I did not feel challenged. And while I could have done any of the work in seconds, I did not want to be like the other students. They had no thirst for knowledge. I wanted to be an individual.
In high school, I wandered, barely passing -- here and there doing enough work to pass so that I could get on to university. If it were not for my parents, I would have failed high school (with an IQ of 144) out of sheer lack of interest. Now, in university, I am thriving -- loving every class I can take, learning everything I can use, and despising anyone who thinks of university as a ticket to a job. For me, it's a place of learning. And I love it.
From the age of 5 to the age of 17, I lived in a bitter hell, all because (with my IQ of 144) I was treated like I had an IQ of 100 and told to write out the same garbage time and time again, when I couldn't care less. I tell you, people with high IQs (130+) see the world a helluva lot different than people with average IQs and just want to solve problems to prove themselves like hunters. The state cannot provide this feature. My advice to school students: drop out, become home schooled, and do whatever you can to get yourself to university as quickly as possible!
How do you classify a rat as being schizophrenia when, even today, the/existence/ of schizophrenia has been questioned by noted psychologists Carl Jung and, more recently, the anti-psychiatry group, not to mention, the all pervasive, Phillip K Dick. Whether you read into psychotic symptoms as an emergent property of a modified perception of time (Dick's explanation), an internalization of alternative social maps that leads to a breakdown of defense mechanisms in a violent catharsis (Jung), or simply "individuality" (anti-psychiatry), we haven't yet falsified schizophrenia:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=125704 7
Now, taking all that into consideration, how many orders of magnitude in difference are human beings from rats? Even if a rat could be one-dimensionally classified as "schizophrenic" by a gene-level modification, it would be a schizophrenia stretch (pun intended), I posit, to induce that a human would be likewise affected by the same gene in a similar manner -- and this is only if we concede that "schizophrenia" exists and if so we can finally arrive at a operational definition of it (which we have yet to do):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6033013.stm
Take off your tinfoil hat, doctor.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I had the same trouble in high school. I was fine through junior high until the 10th grade, where they started introducing "new math". Essentially, one of those really annoying post-modern theorists took control of the administration in my province and introduced a curriculum where people were supposed to learn through analysis and creativity, rather than through a teleological approach. So the math books all had questions, with no advice, and Buddhist-esque thought problems like, "Analyze the simplification. What do you notice about it that is curious?" There was no process. While this approach is great for pure mathematics at the graduate school level and extremely useful for generating pupils with mathematical minds (e.g. not pupils who use their other strengths and then wrap math around them -- e.g. using verbal reasoning to understand math, rather than math to understand math), it was terrible for the majority of students in my province who, like me, barely graduated. I went from an A in junior high in math to a D in my last year. Now, in university, about to graduate with an arts degree, I am returning to math and starting at the basics, with math books written in the 1950s. I just went right to my library and pulled out whatever math book I could find that included basic math. I suggest you do the same. You don't need a tutor! You also don't need any new creative existentialist, post-modern approach to learning math. Just get a book from the 1950s, written in the years of the military industrial complex, where every American was trying to become an astronaut, and read it. Practise some equations. That's all there is to it. DIY and good luck!
They transfer their need to tinker with electronics and technology to political institutions and society. Instead of becoming a criminal, they yearn for a legal and socially acceptable method to tinker as much as possible with reality without also being hacked by other people, that being libertarianism.
This assumes that:
... to Windows.
(a) they have the source code
(b) the source code is not too obfuscated from 1970s engineering paradigms that it can be understood
(c) the guy who originally wrote the system is not dead so that they can talk to him about all the eccentricities of it
(d) that it isn't too bulky to cause a slowdown on NASA's emulators when dealing with real time communication
(e) there is no funky encryption built into the system to protect it from the Soviets
In terms of cost/benefit analysis, it's probably just cheaper for them to leave the old equipment running than pay millions for consultants to take a look at how to port a 1970s communication system built at the height of the Cold War
He's 76 years old. Kind of hard to do action scenes, ain't it? What will he be doing the whole movie? Debating Vulcan philosophy?
It should only take about 4 months to take them out and install spiral galaxies.
Is there any evidence that the Buddhists are anything other than a cult? As much as I feel that China is a dictatorship, I would hate to have a cult operating in my country, whether democratically or not, with the impending threat that they could brainwash my children to believe that the Dalai Lama was a supernatural reincarnation. I feel a tad of empathy for China, in this regard. They are just looking out for their people and protecting them from a potentially dangerous, albeit tragically popular, cult.
Or is there some reason that we should respect the Buddhists as something more (thereby tolerating their "supernatural" claims)?
You have the chance to earn 400 thousand dollars a year and gain "executive control" over the country. All you have to do is set "creationism" to 1 and "evolution" to 0. "Do you believe in creationism?" "Yes." "Do you believe in evolution?" "No." That's all it takes. Now, you tell me, would you have the balls to turn down 400 thousand dollars and root access to the USA? If you think you do, then answer me this again ... would you have the /SUBCONSCIOUS/ balls to turn it down. Uncertainty is a very easy thing to potentiate and embrace. And 400 thousand dollars is a lot more certain than "a theory everyone with clue agrees on". ;-)
This is all out of Machiavelli's The Prince, btw. I think these candidates are just playing the game with no scruples. While I agree this makes them inherently insane, politics and human nature is, shall we say, not enlightened and most of the people who vote for them are *knocks on wood* insane.
I have an IQ of 144. In elementary school, I had the privilege of doing several "enrichment" based classes, being taken out of regular class for further experience in focussed areas which correlated to my perceived gift -- this happened to be theatre and language, according to school psychologists. In my last year of elementary school, it was programming. Unfortunately, I never formed any friendships in elementary school. Because of my gift, I was always finished before the other students and found the "banter" boring. While they discussed Power Rangers, I wanted to talk about Leninism and political theory. My math was a little on the iffy side, but this was because I had, at that point in my life, decided that I wanted to be an actor and subconsciously cut out math. To get the attention of a teacher, I tried to get him fired during an administrative interview, which ended up getting me almost expelled from elementary school. It worked. He failed the interview but I, as a child, was just looking for attention the only way I knew how -- having never been socialized into the group dynamic, having never needed any help from other students -- I treated him like a toddler. In junior high, I cracked a school server and got into heavy trouble. I was also under investigation for some crimes, all of which I got out of. A state psychiatrist believed that I suffered schizophrenia and asked me several times if I heard voices. I told him every time that I did not, but he was very critical -- not understanding why I spent my free time reading about computer engineering and never playing with the other students. The work was just too bloody easy. I did not feel challenged. And while I could have done any of the work in seconds, I did not want to be like the other students. They had no thirst for knowledge. I wanted to be an individual. In high school, I wandered, barely passing -- here and there doing enough work to pass so that I could get on to university. If it were not for my parents, I would have failed high school (with an IQ of 144) out of sheer lack of interest. Now, in university, I am thriving -- loving every class I can take, learning everything I can use, and despising anyone who thinks of university as a ticket to a job. For me, it's a place of learning. And I love it. From the age of 5 to the age of 17, I lived in a bitter hell, all because (with my IQ of 144) I was treated like I had an IQ of 100 and told to write out the same garbage time and time again, when I couldn't care less. I tell you, people with high IQs (130+) see the world a helluva lot different than people with average IQs and just want to solve problems to prove themselves like hunters. The state cannot provide this feature. My advice to school students: drop out, become home schooled, and do whatever you can to get yourself to university as quickly as possible!
How do you classify a rat as being schizophrenia when, even today, the /existence/ of schizophrenia has been questioned by noted psychologists Carl Jung and, more recently, the anti-psychiatry group, not to mention, the all pervasive, Phillip K Dick. Whether you read into psychotic symptoms as an emergent property of a modified perception of time (Dick's explanation), an internalization of alternative social maps that leads to a breakdown of defense mechanisms in a violent catharsis (Jung), or simply "individuality" (anti-psychiatry), we haven't yet falsified schizophrenia:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=125704 7
Now, taking all that into consideration, how many orders of magnitude in difference are human beings from rats? Even if a rat could be one-dimensionally classified as "schizophrenic" by a gene-level modification, it would be a schizophrenia stretch (pun intended), I posit, to induce that a human would be likewise affected by the same gene in a similar manner -- and this is only if we concede that "schizophrenia" exists and if so we can finally arrive at a operational definition of it (which we have yet to do):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6033013.stm
Take off your tinfoil hat, doctor. ;-)