As an English teacher, you should be doing your best to teaching the English language, and an appreciation of the English canon.
You seem to be making gross assumptions about the rest of the material I will cover in my classes, even though I gave absolutely no information about it in the first place. My original post implied that I was curious to find out which resources fostered interests among science and math. Neither did I say I wanted to try and teach those subjects, nor did I indicate that I would be offering up different genres and subjects of literature in lieu of excellent Western literature.
It's amusing to me that someone would make this accusation in particular since, of all the teachers in my department, I'm the only one that offers more "standard" literature instead of just "teen" literature. As a matter of fact, as an end of year project last year I gave out classic poems (ranging from the 1600s to 1950s) and asked the students to interpret meanings and even memorize and give off a performance. I consider this to be a high school task, but they did very well with it!
It's almost like you're sabotaging your own field, and hope to stress other subjects!
It is not my purpose, as an English teacher, to raise students to become English teachers. Nor should it be. My goal is to help them achieve an understanding of literature, figurative language, the complexity of the written word, and to use these concepts to understand the world they live in. Ultimately, that goal is not very different from the sciences and maths. We learn those concepts to understand our world better.
Furthermore, unless I declared war upon grammar, I cannot sabotage my own field. Yes, there is good literature, great literature, poor literature, and absolutely horrible literature. Whatever made you think I would just choose "some random book" from the suggestions here, is beyond me. Most good literature teachers have the foresight to actually READ the books they teach, before the students do.
Furthermore, the sort of people who would get anything out of science-fiction are the sort of people who would read it anyway.
This argument is meaningless. You suggest that people should have a greater appreciation for their culture, so they should study what came from their culture, but then you seem to imply that literature about science is only enjoyed by people with an inborn desire for it. Science IS very much a part of our culture, especially Western nations.
In fact, one of the primary reasons the Western nations have dominated over the global economy for so long is because of the contributions of technology, the advancements of medicine, and the pioneering spirit of our scientists. This should absolutely be celebrated in our classrooms and we should absolutely continue the tradition of fostering a love and wonder of these disciplines.
Honestly I think it's terrible that an English teacher has so little regard for their own subject. If you were the teacher of my child I would demand them being transferred out, and I strongly believe you're in the wrong field.
This is what is posted on my classroom door. You may notice, if you read through the poem, that it has a formal style, a rhyme scheme, it is dense with imagery, alliteration, and metaphor, it includes a clear voice, excellent diction, and the intent of the writer is clear. The tone is powerful and the mood is restless, unrelenting, and uplifting. It also brings up the supernatural and references geological formations, naval concepts, and even the immense scale of planets and beyond. The sentence structures are both simple and complex. Even the punctuation is challenging. The theme encompasses an enormous portion of Western philosophy and even religion, that has been a driving part of our cultur
Some of these ideas are extremely creative. Thank you!
When reading a math problem, many students' problem is figuring out what it is asking... practice looking for meaning in rich story problems.
Coincidentally, this is the most difficult problem to teach in my class as well. That is, "What was this book all about?" Sure, they can answer basic questions about who the characters were, what happened, and where it all took place, but going beyond that into theme is where the students stall. (Ok, so I have all of these numbers and measurements, now what do I do?) What was the story really about.. that is, why was it worthwhile for you to read it? (What is the purpose of this question?) What questions did it make you consider? (How does this relate to the other formulae I know? What else can I do with it?)
Theme is a primary focus in my classroom because it ties in so deeply to literature and writing. And of course, it spills over into other subjects. I personally found theme much easier to understand in science fiction novels than in the more bland reality based novels I was subjected to throughout my schooling.
Finally, tell them how important math and science is. Many students inherit their fear of math because so many other teachers make comments like "you'll have to ask the math teacher, I don't know any of that stuff" that make it seem unattainable and unnecessary.
Much like teachers who degrade the interest level of their own subjects (I actually had a psychology professor who started every lecture with "I know this is boring, but..." and often we were learning about the brain), this also bothers me. While it would be unreasonable to have every teacher an expert in every subject, all teachers should understand enough to at least answer with something besides "go ask someone else." I'm fortunate that I can discuss other subjects in my class without actually being off topic. (A grammatical sentence about constellations is a good example.)
What I would love to see in English classes is a notion that mathematically-inclined people almost take for granted: that contradictions highlight a weakness in the argument, somewhere.
In my school, at the eighth grade level, we have a lot of basic work in grammar to finish before the student moves on to high school, where it is no longer formally taught. Arguments in compositions are a small section not always touched on by the teachers. However, because grammar is still a topic we need to discuss, I try to relate the functions of the sentence several ways, one of them mathematical.
By showing off sentences that are worded incorrectly or have incorrect mechanics, I help the students see the lacking logic of order. Additionally, I show them how they can prove the functions of words in a sentence by simply working the "diagramming" backwards. In doing so, I explicitly compare this to an algebraic formula so that they can begin to make connections in order and logic. Seek the function to determine the purpose.
In the quest for producing essays that are "balanced", the students are encouraged to think that holding simultaneously mutually exclusive points of view is desirable.
I have encountered teachers that think that this method allows for open minds, to which I can only respond, "open to what?" (What's the point of having an open mind if you don't know how to assign qualitative measurements?) However (and I do not know if this is what you might have been thinking of) I will note that it is good practice in argumentative writing to address the other side in order to show its fallacies.
I was fortunate enough to be hired into a school that allows block schedules for the English classes. This means we get the students for two periods instead of just one. Where I live, 8th grade is the last opportunity for students to learn direct grammar. Once they go to high school, they're expected to know the general rules of writing and have a basic command of the English language.
Our principal, therefore, has "mentioned" that we should not be giving homework, since there is time in class to complete it. For my very responsible and very bright students (not necessarily the same ones) this is easy enough. They typically walk into the room and either start on the homework right away, or while I'm teaching the lesson. Even after the day's lessons, there is typically time to at least start the homework. With rare exceptions, the work I assign typically doesn't take more than 10-15 minutes.
So why bother? A few reasons. 1) Practice. It's easy to get the answers right when the teacher is holding your hand through the process. For the slower students, it may not be so easy to locate the prepositional phrase in the blink of an eye. 2) Responsibility. Assigning work that is due at a later date, even a small portion at a time, is helping them learn to be responsible for themselves. In the adult world, not everything is completed the same day you start it and often we have multiple tasks with varying importance and immediacies to balance. Students need to learn to balance too. However, it is important for teachers not to feel like their class is the only one that matters. Homework should be assigned with a specific purpose. Not for busy work. 3) Communication. On a few occasions, I've asked students to specifically wait to do their homework until they arrive home. Additionally, I'll reward students with a freebie grade for obtaining their parent's signature. Why? For those who do this, it's a very brief but simple way to get the parents more aware of what we're doing in class. Sometimes I am able to let parents know what we're working on. However, where I teach, most parents don't have email (and calling 70 parents a week is not realistic). When students talk about their work with their parents, they are reactivating that information, even if but briefly. This helps reinforce what they have learned (often because they need to re-explain it to the parent) and helps the parents be involved, without being nosey. It's a win-win. 4) Avoiding procrastination. By giving students very small bits of homework (10 minutes worth) you are helping them learn that they can avoid those crunch times near the end of due dates. Instead of giving an hour of homework once a week, if you break it into small pieces, they'll understand that they can accomplish larger tasks easily. This is similar to responsibility, but has the added benefit of getting them to study a little every night, instead of all at once (which is almost always completely lost later).
My general rules of homework (for myself as a teacher) are something like this:
*Never give homework as punishment for classroom behavior.
*Assign extra homework to students that really need it, but only occasionally.
*Be conscious that you were once a student too, and had 7 classes to balance.
*Never assign homework that includes information not explained in class.
*Keep projects reasonable, and allow time in class for students to work on them (in case they have questions... which they will).
*By the same token, keep reading assignments reasonable.
IMHO, homework is a practical and beneficial tool when used properly.
Gifted students are being dragged down to the level of everyone else, and normal classes are slowed down to accomodate for slower learners due to NCLB.
Gifted students are dragged down to lower levels for two major (and horrific) reasons.
1) The general view in the eyes of "educators*" is that group work is A Good Thing. By putting smart kids with not so smart kids, educators think that this helps out the slower kids academically, while lets the smarter kids benefit from the "social interaction with those not as quick". They might also throw in some jargon about how letting smarter students work with slower students, they get to re-enforce what they've learned by teaching it to someone else.
What happens in practice is much more shady. Educators use groups to help divy out the workload of the class. By enlisting the (un)voluntary aid of these students, they can focus more of their attention on someone else or rather, less on everyone.
2) In a similar vein, educators seem to have a wretched philosophy of "the smart kids will get it anyway" along with "we should focus our attention on the slowest students, not the fastest" which equals bright students trudging along, waiting for everyone else. What this means is that bright students are almost never challenged and quite usually left to "get it" on their own.
How many slashdotters spent time sitting in a class, where the teacher knew you were more capable than the rest of the class, having seen you master a concept quickly, then just made you wait, doing nothing, while she brought the rest of the class up to speed? I think this is probably the primary reason we see so many very bright students (and adults) who are incredibly listless, unfocused, and fail to achieve later in life.
The other thing I'd like to mention is that NCLB is not the exact cause of this problem. NCLB deals with accountability through standardized testing. That means that if schools can't get a certain percentage of their students to pass fairly basic skills tests, they are in danger of losing federal funding. Educators object to this because of other laws that have passed for mandatory inclusion. This is where special needs students are required to have time in regular classrooms. Because of this inclusion, test scores will drop slightly. (The real reason scores are so low however, is because there is very little challenging content being taught.)
Sadly, although inclusion sounds very humanitarian and swell, for a vast majority of these students, it's a very bad situation. Many special needs students operate best in very small, focused environments and with practically no benefit to being around normal children. Horror stories abound with educators being forced to run a class of 25 students plus "one" that is completely unable to participate. This inclusion disrupts the class, halts academics and really is not mostly beneficial for everyone involved.
As for programming in the schools, I think there is another reason it has changed to Word and PowerPoint. Educators seem to be the least technologically competent people I have met, but inversely, also seem to be the loudest proponents for "including technology in the classroom because it is a skill required in the 21st century".
I know this because my mother has been in education for over 30 years and believes there is a major problem with her computer when AIM starts up accidentally. She's not an unintelligent person. She just knows nothing vaguely important about technology. She has little concept of very basic functions, like being able to copy and paste information from one program to another. She can use one or two programs with some efficiency, but beyond that, it's a mystery. When she talks about having technology in the classroom, she's not talking about programming... even remotely. She's talking about Word and PowerPoint and maybe even a web page the students had to find.
The Walmart article is definitely NPOV. It presents the cold facts with practically no commentary or spin.
At the time I looked at Walmart's wiki, the first thing I read was the following:
"Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) (also known as 'The Great Satan', or 'Satan-Mart' or 'Evil Empire of Arkansas' (inside Costco) was founded by Sam Walton in 1962.
Name-calling of this sort should not be at the top of an informational article, directly next to the subject title. This shows an immediate and obvious bias against the topic. Just for comparison's sake, look at the introduction to President Bush's page:
"George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas. He is currently in his second term as president, serving until January 20, 2009.
Normally, I wouldn't reply so late in the day, since it's likely very few people will see the comment. That said, while your point regarding beguiling the person being tested may be valid, I have found that regardless of all the other points you presented, the tests are poorly constructed. I have two major complaints with such tests.
"Often tests do ask what one will do, but what people don't realize is that many times the same essential questions are asked in different ways and the results are compared. If they are inconsistent, that can indicate the person is lying on the test or has ethical issues or perceives himself as being one kind of person when, in reality, he is not." [emphasis mine]
The very first psychologist I saw gave me a 500 question test with asinine questions reworded 10 or 15 different ways. Now, psychologists love to try and compartmentalize humans into manageable little segments, but unfortunately, that's not how we work. Some people will see the same question about death/suicide and think it's the same, and thus answer the same. Others won't realize it at all. For me personally, I understand that language is a very specific and precise tool. If a sentence is worded differently, something different is being implied. Therefore, my answers will undoubtedly change.
"I believe that suicide is an acceptable alternative."
vs.
"I think suicide is a good choice."
These two sentences mean VERY different things, yet if I answer them differently on a test, the psychologist will think I'm untruthful. Sure enough, the psychologist accused me of lying. It didn't matter to her that I could understand that those two statements are NOT identical. My answers were inconsistent throughout the test. How is psychology supposed to help when it can't even command the language properly?
My second issue with tests like these, manifests in the compartmentalization fetish that is necessary for grouping personalities.
"One set of terms may make the person pick between compassion and logic. Another may make them pick between compassion and fairness."
This is a philosophical fallacy that is constantly ignored by psychology. [Background check: I have actually studied psychology enough to present this claim.] A person can be compassionate and logical, to equal degrees. However, by forcing the person to choose between the two, the test forces him to be something he may not be. Similar to this problem is the choice of wording. Certain words used on tests make assumptions about the philosophical leanings of the test-taker. These are never disclosed before the test and will always screw the person over. Some people take the literal definition to heart, but psychologists have a disturbing tendency to use popular or democratic definitions. These are loaded with bias and always force the test-taker into answering against his self in a negative light. If compassionate and logical are presented as opposite or contrary personalities, that assumes that logical people are not compassionate, or that compassionate people are not logical.
With these points in mind, the fellow who pointed out your egregious spelling errors does actually have a valid point. Language should be of foremost importance to psychologists, but it is treated dismissively, much to the harm of those being tested.
It is my understanding that private healthcare, with the exception of dentistry, is essentially illegal in Canada. So no, she can't get private medical treatment and jump ahead of a line. On the other hand, important folks, like politicians and celebrities either get treatment elsewhere or are bumped ahead, so that there's no reason for the "loud voices" to complain publically.
The fact that some Americans, like myself, do not have healthcare coverage is too broad a statement to act as a condemnation. There are multiple reasons why some people do not have coverage and not all are automatically immoral. Personally, without coverage, I'm not tied to any particular doctor or healthplan. If I don't like the service I'm getting, I walk along with my money.
You can get your dog in for an MRI same day but you'll be waiting months for yours.
For those who are curious, the above is not an exaggeration, as shown by this film.
As partially summarized by a Canadian blogger, "When you have finished watching this film several images will remain with you for some time to come. A woman who spent two years waiting for knee surgery and innocently asks the American filmmakers whether the waiting lists are as long there as they are here. The moment when she begins to grasp that a health care waiting list is a concept alien to most sick Americans, though sadly not health care compelled bankruptcy, is something that cannot be explained. More stories follow of addiction to pain killers brought on by wait times, of the suffering families go through, of men and women calmly contemplating death for ailments which medical science long ago conquered, but which government control has placed out of reach."
It's not "an O Thing" that the title is referring to (which is totally ridiculous). The title is a reference to two things. "Noting" (as another poster replied) - which is insignificant conversation and "Nothing" which IS a polite bit of Shakespearean slang which can (and usually does) refer to the female genitalia. The pun on "nothing" is perhaps most obvious in a conversation in Shakespeare's Hamlet with Ophelia:
Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
[Lying down at Ophelia's feet.]
Ophelia: No, my lord.
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Ay, my lord.
Ham.: Do you think I meant country matters?
Oph.: I think nothing, my lord.
Ham.: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
Oph.: What is, my lord?
Ham.: Nothing.
Incidentally, Much Ado About Nothing is about both the effects "casual" conversation and the implications of real and perceived sexual relationships.
I am a liberal arts student. (Literature major)
I plan on getting certification to become a teacher.
I have taken both humanities & literature courses and education courses.
I recently completed a required class for all certification candidates called "Computers in the Classroom."
The class is supposedly designed to help teacher candidates learn ways of successfully integrating technology into the curriculum, not to teach them the specific technologies. I guess it is assumed that the students should already know the technologies. The truth, however, is much different. Over the course of this class, students were expected to learn (because all but 3, myself included, seemed not to know already) how to use word processing, desktop publishing, spreadsheets, databases, graphics programs, web page building, presentation software and internet browsers (to a small extent: bookmarks). We also had assignments that discussed acceptable use policies, storyboards and "WebQuests".
The class consisted of almost 50 assignments that ranged between 3 minutes and 5 hours worth of work each. We had to complete each assignment, upload it onto the class website, discuss the ideas behind each technology on a message board or in a chat session/podcast, and even evaluate the comments and work of others on at least one time. In addition, we also had to invent "mini-lesson plans" for each topic we discussed. The class was approximately 8 sessions long for periods of no more than 2 hours a piece. Each lesson had step by step instructions to guide the students through the assignment.
And finally, practically every assignment had to be linked to a series of workbooks we were required to buy. The topic of these lesson plan books is environmentalism. Their relevance to the course, to technology and to education in general was never explained. Merely, it was expected.
So here's what really happened. Those who already knew the technology found all this to be busywork nonsense with a dash of contrived propaganda thrown in for fun. Those who didn't know the technology still don't know the technology. Students couldn't tell the difference between word processing software and desktop publishing software. Students couldn't create documents that followed guidelines that asked them to be mindful of style, typography and formatting. Students didn't understand anything about specific software (like what it's used for, how to use it outside of hand-held instructions, how it works) much less the purpose of the broader category of software from which each is an example.
For my own part, from the 50 assignments that we were required to complete, I received grades on only 15 (And yes, I did them all). All without any comment or feedback to explain (when necessary) lost points. Of those 15, at least 5 were wrongly graded due to technology blunders. Over the course of the semester, we were lucky if the message boards and chat server worked, and most of us were unable to write simple emails through the university system due to a "glitch" that failed to allow us to enter a recipient.
When it was all said and done, the class was a total failure (even though with all the "ungraded assignments" I mysteriously received an "A"). It never discussed how to implement these technologies because so much time was spent trying to teach the majority of the class how to follow instructions (not how to use the technology) or trying to get things to work. The class was taken at a university that is so intent on incorporating technology that they no longer print the new class listings for each semester. It's all online.
I know how to use computers better than what one might consider "the average person". But I am definitely not tech-savvy. I can build web pages to some small degree, I have worked as a graphic designer in a small copy shop, I play some games, chat to some friends online and read some of my news online. I am aware of what viruses are, I use ftp-like programs, and I enjoy fl
I simply wanted to thank you for that wonderfully derisive nickname for "kids". I think it accurately describes the attitude of the parents this article discusses. Thank you for the laugh:>
Try upper white middle class suburbia. The only thing further from a ghetto would be the high class indie theaters in the downtown district. Those weren't much different. I live in a city of 4 million. But frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the ghetto theaters had better ettiquette. Maybe when people don't have a lot of money to go out all the time, they care more for the experience.
For futher clarification, the comparison is between two industrial cities with comparable populations (income, number, diversity).
Believe me, I would *love* to find a theater where the standards of good behaviour are still enforced.
The contrast between American audiences and others is totally startling. I had started making a habit of taking weekdays off so that I could have a chance of a quiet screening. Sometimes you luck out. Sometimes you just couldn't avoid a later screening. I've tried everything. Sitting and waiting patiently (no result), screaming some obscenity at the top of lungs at obnoxious teenagers (applause from audience), politely asking people to be quiet (snyde looks and continued talking).
I recently took a trip to Canada and saw two films there. I was absolutely SHOCKED by the level of silence in the theaters. No cell phones ringing, nobody talking full voice on a cell phone, no crying children, no teenagers running in and out of the theater, no one throwing anything, no couples having irrelevant conversations.... Just pure silence. The difference is totally staggering.
I'm really waiting for someone to make a members only theater that has strict rules about behaviour. I'd gladly pay a membership fee AND a viewing fee to have an enjoyable movie experience again. Bring back the ushers!
Passing the buck == More Useless Laws
on
CAN-SPAM Is A Bust
·
· Score: 1
We need to put teeth into that law by making the bank that processes the credit card transaction an accessory to that offense. It's aiding and abbetting money-laundering.
{sarcasm} Like how gun manufacturers aid and abet armed robbery? We should make banks liable for aiding the purchase of guns used by criminals too. We should make banks liable for the millions of people that use credit cards to purchase fast food 7 days a week and consequently become obese too! And how about blaming the banks as well for whenever the credit card is outright stolen? They should have a 24/7 surveillance on every card, right? It's best if everyone's privacy is completely invaded so that the few among us without common sense don't get ripped off when they purchase something from a highly suspicious website, to which they were directed from an atrociously juvenile email, riddled with nonsense words! Those poor souls!{/sarcasm}
Unless a bank is partner to the actual deception itself, keep the blame on those who are committing fraud. The only buck that should be passed on, is to the irresponsibility of those without common sense that actually choose to pay attention to spam.
I, for one, am sick and tired of paying the price of lost rights due to those few people that adamantly refuse to take responsibility. I still love the following example that was posted a while back:
A tiny bit of effort on their [users] part would pay huge dividends. Why is it that people think being ignorant of how a computer works is something to be so damned _proud_ of? Nobody says "I'm car-illiterate" with a little chuckle after they wrap a sedan around a tree, but users who accidentally destroy their computers somehow think it's IT's fault." -- saintlupus
For the time invested, reading is a very poor way of getting information, especially with regards to fiction.
As someone already noted below, special effects are getting better every year. From that alone, your statement would be true. But acting skills haven't improved much, especially in under budgeted sci-fi flicks. The experience will be different from a movie that spoon-feeds you what someone else decides you should know. In a novel, details are important, but each individual may read a character differently. It's also important to note that some things simply don't transfer well to screen. Heck, some things in books never even make it to the screen, and in many cases, it's a crucial difference.
This last New Years, I made a resolution to read 100 books this year. I simply wanted to expand my concentration and know more about novels. I had a limited experience in classes, and like most others here, did not enjoy the vast majority that was handed down as an assignment. I felt like I was missing out, and wanted to know why. Through the course of my reading, I have seen through the eyes of characters, instead of merely observed them.
No point in listing everything I've read, so here are my two favorites so far. "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley is absolutely nothing like the ridiculous movies. Instead, it is a gruesome and touching story of a creature created without any access to the comforts of love and friendship. In the story, the obscenity of the creature can be fully explained due to the full details of the time period. In a movie, this is somewhat lost because of lack of time. You can show the time, via costumes and fancy sets, but you can't completely empathize with the characters. Reading "Frankenstein", you see how crucial this is to a fabulous novel. I hope to teach someday, and this will definitely be on the reading list.
Second recommendation is the extremely short but immensely funny "Candide" by Voltaire. Subversively political and almost crude in terms of the sexuality and lifestyles, it follows a section of life of a young man, who seems a bit too innocent compared to those around him. It's short enough to be read in a single day (or a few hours) and is definitely neither something you will probably ever read in high school or college (unless you're lucky) nor see at a movie (but maybe a play or tv short).
Do you really remember significantly more detail about a story from reading a book than from seeing a movie?
Absolutely. I remember images from movies, but with books I remember entire scenes, emotions of the characters and minute details about the whole story. I read because I want to know more. I read because I want to expand both my vocabulary and language skills. I read because movies are expensive and generally unsatisfying, and TV is filled with reality crap. I love the internet for the tidbits it provides, but it is honestly enjoyable to stretch out a story over a week. To feel in a rush to get home so that I can find out what happens next. It's like an On-Demand miniseries:P
When I've read a new book, the first thing I want to do is discuss it with other people.
Either: 1) Actually recommend the book to a friend and ask them to read it too. or 2) Join a book club. Besides that, your choice of actions should not be determined by what everyone else is doing, especially if it sucks. I've read a few books that were recommended by friends and am glad I did. The experience will be shared if you make an active effort.
He doesn't associate known names with unknown objects.
With regards to your frisbee example, no, that is not what I was saying. I'm saying that a dog, child or other creature with a good memory likely will not 'misassociate' words and objects. In that, if you teach it "ball" and you teach it "hat", it won't suddenly decide that something it doesn't recognize, that is completely dissimilar to either a ball or a hat (such as a frog perhaps), is *also* a "ball".
And it's not really that you personally are arguing that the dog understands language, but how the media has chosen to present this report. Syntax is extremely important, and they have chosen to ignore the important differences in lieu of a big, fuzzy, happy story for pet owners to grin about.
I've had pets all my life, and I do believe there is higher-reasoning in their actions. But this article honestly doesn't tell readers anything more besides "dogs have memories".
No, it's not what "they" are doing. They are training an animal to respond to simple, memorized commands. By process of elimination, the dog can put together "thing I've never smelled" with "command I've never heard", since other objects are known in a prior environment. This action does not mean the dog understands "language". It is a one way interaction.
I work with young children (austic spectrum) who have trouble learning language. There is an obvious difference between following a rote command and getting feedback that proves active cognition. Other animals, such as Koko the gorilla who learned sign-language are much more impressive in this field. The animal could generate her own questions and pull answers together from a database of knowledge. There was active cognition involved in this.
The dog on the other hand merely memorized "new thing" and "new words". To prove that he truly understood the language itself, you would need to create a field of *all* new objects, then ask for it to choose something specific about one of them. If it was chosen right, you could then infer that there is a greater chance the basic concepts (the object + descriptor = target.. ex. ball + big = big ball) were being processed against other concepts.
With the children I work with, it is absolutely vital that we check question discrimination and comprehension of past memorization.. otherwise, it's just memory and answers to questions sound parroted, or robotic. As for "high-functioning creature", this would involve any animal that can perform problem solving tasks. Get fruit from jar, navigate through maze, respond to commands. It would not include animals that only respond on instinct, such as a fish that eats flakes when you feed him. High-functioning creatures have a good capacity for memory and problem-solving.
The fault of this experiment is that these "200 words" could have easily have been grunts, musical tones, or obscene hand gestures. There is nothing saying it has learned the words because there is nothing that has indicated they did any kind of discrimination trials. All they did was pair "new" with "new". [Additionally, the article even states that there is nothing that indicates the animal has an equally "rich" understanding of the phrases he *does* know.] That simply means the dog has a good memory. (He doesn't associate known names with unknown objects.) You test active cognition by presenting a field of objects, or worded question (depending on the desired response) by pairing something known with something unknown against wrong but similar answers.
To sum up, Rico essentially had a multiple choice test. Visually, it might have looked something like this:
1+1=
a) apple
b) dog c) 2 !!! PICK THIS ONE !!!
d) car
And typically, when we test comprehension, we don't give away the answers as that completely defeats the point. Understanding the difference between memory and active cognition is important when you want to go trumpeting the language comprehension of any creature. If you want more proof, try working with humans who have difficulty with language, so that you can learn this crucial difference hands-on.
The dog is going to realize which one is out of place just by the smell of the toy which obviously doesn't fit w/the rest.
I don't find it impressive either. What would have been a better display of reasoning is to teach the dogs adjectives or attributes. Big vs little, hard vs soft, light vs heavy, then tell him to go pick, from a group of all new toys, one that had a specific combination of attributes. "Go get the big, soft, heavy ball" Anything else is just process of elimination, which all high-functioning creatures can do to some extent.
" In fact, I had to bust my ass to be just above average. "
This is some of the best advice I've read so far in this swamp of "get over yourself" and "life sucks, so start sucking" comments. Do something that will really challenge you, but not just for the sake of it being hard. Do it because you know you have the ability. Prove it to yourself and others. Most importantly, find something you are absolutely, without a doubt, passionate about.
I'm an INTP myself and have had almost identical experiences that you described. The difference is that I also did them while in college for the first several years, without knowing what I really wanted to do. I've had 6 majors during my academic career while considering countless more. Everything interests me on a fundamental level, and thus, I'm distracted by everything. I want to keep switching around, trying new things..etc.
It wasn't until about a year ago I realized what I was doing wrong. I hated the way classes are set up, how they seem go so slow.. and how so often, they were utterly pointless. I had wasted years of my life in subjects I was not intrinsically interested in AND that were easy enough for me to basically ignore. Passion towards a subject is absolutely vital to people like us as it gives us a much needed focus to achieve. Otherwise, we just drift off into a sea of endless exploration and mediocre achievements.
For me, and many may find this ironic, it turns out that my passion is education. A subject I swore I would never get into, that I hated because of all the lousy teachers I encountered, has become my point of focus. I am absolutely driven now to become a teacher that is *good* and hopefully, will inspire students to both love learning and take it seriously. Find your passion and you will find the focus that you need to prove to yourself, and everyone, just how much potential you really have. Hard classes will push you to succeed (if at least for the sake of your ego) and will end up teaching you the skills you need to be focused as well. Good Luck!
I'm so glad to see that there are other people that really hate this guy. Nothing he has done has impressed me or caused me to think anything but pompous moron. Judgemental, yes.. but how can you really respect a guy that jumps onto cooking counters and whines all the time?
The thing is, we have (at the moment) a right to privacy.
The Constitution says nothing about a right to "privacy". What it does address are individual liberties and protection from unreasonable search and seizures. Concretely, this is explicitly expressed in two ways. 1) There needs to be a reason for law enforcement to come into your house, sniff around, and take your possessions. 2) You are responsible for yourself and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So technically, while public places are public, that still doesn't mean a police officer can come up to you, without provocation or prior reason and demand your papers. He might ask you questions in relation to a nearby crime scene, or if you live nearby, but these are relevant to investigation. What is not relevant is keeping tabs on everybody, everywhere.
There must be a reason for specific intrusion to your life. (Warrants) There must be a reason for them to keep track of your movements and persuit of happiness. (Taps) There must be a reason to restrict your actions and liberty. (Security check points).
Allowing a government to walk over either of these ideals strips us away from our fundamental liberties as human beings and American citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be making gross assumptions about the rest of the material I will cover in my classes, even though I gave absolutely no information about it in the first place. My original post implied that I was curious to find out which resources fostered interests among science and math. Neither did I say I wanted to try and teach those subjects, nor did I indicate that I would be offering up different genres and subjects of literature in lieu of excellent Western literature.
It's amusing to me that someone would make this accusation in particular since, of all the teachers in my department, I'm the only one that offers more "standard" literature instead of just "teen" literature. As a matter of fact, as an end of year project last year I gave out classic poems (ranging from the 1600s to 1950s) and asked the students to interpret meanings and even memorize and give off a performance. I consider this to be a high school task, but they did very well with it!
It is not my purpose, as an English teacher, to raise students to become English teachers. Nor should it be. My goal is to help them achieve an understanding of literature, figurative language, the complexity of the written word, and to use these concepts to understand the world they live in. Ultimately, that goal is not very different from the sciences and maths. We learn those concepts to understand our world better.
Furthermore, unless I declared war upon grammar, I cannot sabotage my own field. Yes, there is good literature, great literature, poor literature, and absolutely horrible literature. Whatever made you think I would just choose "some random book" from the suggestions here, is beyond me. Most good literature teachers have the foresight to actually READ the books they teach, before the students do.
This argument is meaningless. You suggest that people should have a greater appreciation for their culture, so they should study what came from their culture, but then you seem to imply that literature about science is only enjoyed by people with an inborn desire for it. Science IS very much a part of our culture, especially Western nations.
In fact, one of the primary reasons the Western nations have dominated over the global economy for so long is because of the contributions of technology, the advancements of medicine, and the pioneering spirit of our scientists. This should absolutely be celebrated in our classrooms and we should absolutely continue the tradition of fostering a love and wonder of these disciplines.
This is what is posted on my classroom door. You may notice, if you read through the poem, that it has a formal style, a rhyme scheme, it is dense with imagery, alliteration, and metaphor, it includes a clear voice, excellent diction, and the intent of the writer is clear. The tone is powerful and the mood is restless, unrelenting, and uplifting. It also brings up the supernatural and references geological formations, naval concepts, and even the immense scale of planets and beyond. The sentence structures are both simple and complex. Even the punctuation is challenging. The theme encompasses an enormous portion of Western philosophy and even religion, that has been a driving part of our cultur
Coincidentally, this is the most difficult problem to teach in my class as well. That is, "What was this book all about?" Sure, they can answer basic questions about who the characters were, what happened, and where it all took place, but going beyond that into theme is where the students stall.
(Ok, so I have all of these numbers and measurements, now what do I do?)
What was the story really about.. that is, why was it worthwhile for you to read it?
(What is the purpose of this question?)
What questions did it make you consider?
(How does this relate to the other formulae I know? What else can I do with it?)
Theme is a primary focus in my classroom because it ties in so deeply to literature and writing. And of course, it spills over into other subjects. I personally found theme much easier to understand in science fiction novels than in the more bland reality based novels I was subjected to throughout my schooling.
Much like teachers who degrade the interest level of their own subjects (I actually had a psychology professor who started every lecture with "I know this is boring, but..." and often we were learning about the brain), this also bothers me. While it would be unreasonable to have every teacher an expert in every subject, all teachers should understand enough to at least answer with something besides "go ask someone else." I'm fortunate that I can discuss other subjects in my class without actually being off topic. (A grammatical sentence about constellations is a good example.)
In my school, at the eighth grade level, we have a lot of basic work in grammar to finish before the student moves on to high school, where it is no longer formally taught. Arguments in compositions are a small section not always touched on by the teachers. However, because grammar is still a topic we need to discuss, I try to relate the functions of the sentence several ways, one of them mathematical.
By showing off sentences that are worded incorrectly or have incorrect mechanics, I help the students see the lacking logic of order. Additionally, I show them how they can prove the functions of words in a sentence by simply working the "diagramming" backwards. In doing so, I explicitly compare this to an algebraic formula so that they can begin to make connections in order and logic. Seek the function to determine the purpose.
I have encountered teachers that think that this method allows for open minds, to which I can only respond, "open to what?" (What's the point of having an open mind if you don't know how to assign qualitative measurements?) However (and I do not know if this is what you might have been thinking of) I will note that it is good practice in argumentative writing to address the other side in order to show its fallacies.
Our principal, therefore, has "mentioned" that we should not be giving homework, since there is time in class to complete it. For my very responsible and very bright students (not necessarily the same ones) this is easy enough. They typically walk into the room and either start on the homework right away, or while I'm teaching the lesson. Even after the day's lessons, there is typically time to at least start the homework. With rare exceptions, the work I assign typically doesn't take more than 10-15 minutes.
So why bother? A few reasons.
1) Practice. It's easy to get the answers right when the teacher is holding your hand through the process. For the slower students, it may not be so easy to locate the prepositional phrase in the blink of an eye.
2) Responsibility. Assigning work that is due at a later date, even a small portion at a time, is helping them learn to be responsible for themselves. In the adult world, not everything is completed the same day you start it and often we have multiple tasks with varying importance and immediacies to balance. Students need to learn to balance too. However, it is important for teachers not to feel like their class is the only one that matters. Homework should be assigned with a specific purpose. Not for busy work.
3) Communication. On a few occasions, I've asked students to specifically wait to do their homework until they arrive home. Additionally, I'll reward students with a freebie grade for obtaining their parent's signature. Why? For those who do this, it's a very brief but simple way to get the parents more aware of what we're doing in class. Sometimes I am able to let parents know what we're working on. However, where I teach, most parents don't have email (and calling 70 parents a week is not realistic). When students talk about their work with their parents, they are reactivating that information, even if but briefly. This helps reinforce what they have learned (often because they need to re-explain it to the parent) and helps the parents be involved, without being nosey. It's a win-win.
4) Avoiding procrastination. By giving students very small bits of homework (10 minutes worth) you are helping them learn that they can avoid those crunch times near the end of due dates. Instead of giving an hour of homework once a week, if you break it into small pieces, they'll understand that they can accomplish larger tasks easily. This is similar to responsibility, but has the added benefit of getting them to study a little every night, instead of all at once (which is almost always completely lost later).
My general rules of homework (for myself as a teacher) are something like this:
*Never give homework as punishment for classroom behavior.
*Assign extra homework to students that really need it, but only occasionally.
*Be conscious that you were once a student too, and had 7 classes to balance.
*Never assign homework that includes information not explained in class.
*Keep projects reasonable, and allow time in class for students to work on them (in case they have questions... which they will).
*By the same token, keep reading assignments reasonable.
IMHO, homework is a practical and beneficial tool when used properly.
Seeing a comment abut guerillas didn't help either :P
Gifted students are being dragged down to the level of everyone else, and normal classes are slowed down to accomodate for slower learners due to NCLB.
Gifted students are dragged down to lower levels for two major (and horrific) reasons.
1) The general view in the eyes of "educators*" is that group work is A Good Thing. By putting smart kids with not so smart kids, educators think that this helps out the slower kids academically, while lets the smarter kids benefit from the "social interaction with those not as quick". They might also throw in some jargon about how letting smarter students work with slower students, they get to re-enforce what they've learned by teaching it to someone else.
What happens in practice is much more shady. Educators use groups to help divy out the workload of the class. By enlisting the (un)voluntary aid of these students, they can focus more of their attention on someone else or rather, less on everyone.
2) In a similar vein, educators seem to have a wretched philosophy of "the smart kids will get it anyway" along with "we should focus our attention on the slowest students, not the fastest" which equals bright students trudging along, waiting for everyone else. What this means is that bright students are almost never challenged and quite usually left to "get it" on their own.
How many slashdotters spent time sitting in a class, where the teacher knew you were more capable than the rest of the class, having seen you master a concept quickly, then just made you wait, doing nothing, while she brought the rest of the class up to speed? I think this is probably the primary reason we see so many very bright students (and adults) who are incredibly listless, unfocused, and fail to achieve later in life.
The other thing I'd like to mention is that NCLB is not the exact cause of this problem. NCLB deals with accountability through standardized testing. That means that if schools can't get a certain percentage of their students to pass fairly basic skills tests, they are in danger of losing federal funding. Educators object to this because of other laws that have passed for mandatory inclusion. This is where special needs students are required to have time in regular classrooms. Because of this inclusion, test scores will drop slightly. (The real reason scores are so low however, is because there is very little challenging content being taught.)
Sadly, although inclusion sounds very humanitarian and swell, for a vast majority of these students, it's a very bad situation. Many special needs students operate best in very small, focused environments and with practically no benefit to being around normal children. Horror stories abound with educators being forced to run a class of 25 students plus "one" that is completely unable to participate. This inclusion disrupts the class, halts academics and really is not mostly beneficial for everyone involved.
As for programming in the schools, I think there is another reason it has changed to Word and PowerPoint. Educators seem to be the least technologically competent people I have met, but inversely, also seem to be the loudest proponents for "including technology in the classroom because it is a skill required in the 21st century".
I know this because my mother has been in education for over 30 years and believes there is a major problem with her computer when AIM starts up accidentally. She's not an unintelligent person. She just knows nothing vaguely important about technology. She has little concept of very basic functions, like being able to copy and paste information from one program to another. She can use one or two programs with some efficiency, but beyond that, it's a mystery. When she talks about having technology in the classroom, she's not talking about programming... even remotely. She's talking about Word and PowerPoint and maybe even a web page the students had to find.
On the other hand, I'm about to s
Don't forget to brush up on the safety guide!
At the time I looked at Walmart's wiki, the first thing I read was the following:
"Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) (also known as 'The Great Satan', or 'Satan-Mart' or 'Evil Empire of Arkansas' (inside Costco) was founded by Sam Walton in 1962.
Name-calling of this sort should not be at the top of an informational article, directly next to the subject title. This shows an immediate and obvious bias against the topic. Just for comparison's sake, look at the introduction to President Bush's page: "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas. He is currently in his second term as president, serving until January 20, 2009.
"Often tests do ask what one will do, but what people don't realize is that many times the same essential questions are asked in different ways and the results are compared. If they are inconsistent, that can indicate the person is lying on the test or has ethical issues or perceives himself as being one kind of person when, in reality, he is not." [emphasis mine]
The very first psychologist I saw gave me a 500 question test with asinine questions reworded 10 or 15 different ways. Now, psychologists love to try and compartmentalize humans into manageable little segments, but unfortunately, that's not how we work. Some people will see the same question about death/suicide and think it's the same, and thus answer the same. Others won't realize it at all. For me personally, I understand that language is a very specific and precise tool. If a sentence is worded differently, something different is being implied. Therefore, my answers will undoubtedly change.
"I believe that suicide is an acceptable alternative."
vs.
"I think suicide is a good choice."
These two sentences mean VERY different things, yet if I answer them differently on a test, the psychologist will think I'm untruthful. Sure enough, the psychologist accused me of lying. It didn't matter to her that I could understand that those two statements are NOT identical. My answers were inconsistent throughout the test. How is psychology supposed to help when it can't even command the language properly?
My second issue with tests like these, manifests in the compartmentalization fetish that is necessary for grouping personalities.
"One set of terms may make the person pick between compassion and logic. Another may make them pick between compassion and fairness."
This is a philosophical fallacy that is constantly ignored by psychology. [Background check: I have actually studied psychology enough to present this claim.] A person can be compassionate and logical, to equal degrees. However, by forcing the person to choose between the two, the test forces him to be something he may not be. Similar to this problem is the choice of wording. Certain words used on tests make assumptions about the philosophical leanings of the test-taker. These are never disclosed before the test and will always screw the person over. Some people take the literal definition to heart, but psychologists have a disturbing tendency to use popular or democratic definitions. These are loaded with bias and always force the test-taker into answering against his self in a negative light. If compassionate and logical are presented as opposite or contrary personalities, that assumes that logical people are not compassionate, or that compassionate people are not logical.
With these points in mind, the fellow who pointed out your egregious spelling errors does actually have a valid point. Language should be of foremost importance to psychologists, but it is treated dismissively, much to the harm of those being tested.
The fact that some Americans, like myself, do not have healthcare coverage is too broad a statement to act as a condemnation. There are multiple reasons why some people do not have coverage and not all are automatically immoral. Personally, without coverage, I'm not tied to any particular doctor or healthplan. If I don't like the service I'm getting, I walk along with my money.
For those who are curious, the above is not an exaggeration, as shown by this film.
As partially summarized by a Canadian blogger, "When you have finished watching this film several images will remain with you for some time to come. A woman who spent two years waiting for knee surgery and innocently asks the American filmmakers whether the waiting lists are as long there as they are here. The moment when she begins to grasp that a health care waiting list is a concept alien to most sick Americans, though sadly not health care compelled bankruptcy, is something that cannot be explained. More stories follow of addiction to pain killers brought on by wait times, of the suffering families go through, of men and women calmly contemplating death for ailments which medical science long ago conquered, but which government control has placed out of reach."
Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
[Lying down at Ophelia's feet.]
Ophelia: No, my lord.
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Ay, my lord.
Ham.: Do you think I meant country matters?
Oph.: I think nothing, my lord.
Ham.: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
Oph.: What is, my lord?
Ham.: Nothing.
Incidentally, Much Ado About Nothing is about both the effects "casual" conversation and the implications of real and perceived sexual relationships.
Could you reference a few of the sources that confirm this point?
I plan on getting certification to become a teacher.
I have taken both humanities & literature courses and education courses.
I recently completed a required class for all certification candidates called "Computers in the Classroom."
The class is supposedly designed to help teacher candidates learn ways of successfully integrating technology into the curriculum, not to teach them the specific technologies. I guess it is assumed that the students should already know the technologies. The truth, however, is much different. Over the course of this class, students were expected to learn (because all but 3, myself included, seemed not to know already) how to use word processing, desktop publishing, spreadsheets, databases, graphics programs, web page building, presentation software and internet browsers (to a small extent: bookmarks). We also had assignments that discussed acceptable use policies, storyboards and "WebQuests".
The class consisted of almost 50 assignments that ranged between 3 minutes and 5 hours worth of work each. We had to complete each assignment, upload it onto the class website, discuss the ideas behind each technology on a message board or in a chat session/podcast, and even evaluate the comments and work of others on at least one time. In addition, we also had to invent "mini-lesson plans" for each topic we discussed. The class was approximately 8 sessions long for periods of no more than 2 hours a piece. Each lesson had step by step instructions to guide the students through the assignment.
And finally, practically every assignment had to be linked to a series of workbooks we were required to buy. The topic of these lesson plan books is environmentalism. Their relevance to the course, to technology and to education in general was never explained. Merely, it was expected.
So here's what really happened. Those who already knew the technology found all this to be busywork nonsense with a dash of contrived propaganda thrown in for fun. Those who didn't know the technology still don't know the technology. Students couldn't tell the difference between word processing software and desktop publishing software. Students couldn't create documents that followed guidelines that asked them to be mindful of style, typography and formatting. Students didn't understand anything about specific software (like what it's used for, how to use it outside of hand-held instructions, how it works) much less the purpose of the broader category of software from which each is an example.
For my own part, from the 50 assignments that we were required to complete, I received grades on only 15 (And yes, I did them all). All without any comment or feedback to explain (when necessary) lost points. Of those 15, at least 5 were wrongly graded due to technology blunders. Over the course of the semester, we were lucky if the message boards and chat server worked, and most of us were unable to write simple emails through the university system due to a "glitch" that failed to allow us to enter a recipient.
When it was all said and done, the class was a total failure (even though with all the "ungraded assignments" I mysteriously received an "A"). It never discussed how to implement these technologies because so much time was spent trying to teach the majority of the class how to follow instructions (not how to use the technology) or trying to get things to work. The class was taken at a university that is so intent on incorporating technology that they no longer print the new class listings for each semester. It's all online.
I know how to use computers better than what one might consider "the average person". But I am definitely not tech-savvy. I can build web pages to some small degree, I have worked as a graphic designer in a small copy shop, I play some games, chat to some friends online and read some of my news online. I am aware of what viruses are, I use ftp-like programs, and I enjoy fl
"... their ill-begotten loin spawn..."
I simply wanted to thank you for that wonderfully derisive nickname for "kids". I think it accurately describes the attitude of the parents this article discusses. Thank you for the laugh :>
For futher clarification, the comparison is between two industrial cities with comparable populations (income, number, diversity).
Believe me, I would *love* to find a theater where the standards of good behaviour are still enforced.
I recently took a trip to Canada and saw two films there. I was absolutely SHOCKED by the level of silence in the theaters. No cell phones ringing, nobody talking full voice on a cell phone, no crying children, no teenagers running in and out of the theater, no one throwing anything, no couples having irrelevant conversations.... Just pure silence. The difference is totally staggering.
I'm really waiting for someone to make a members only theater that has strict rules about behaviour. I'd gladly pay a membership fee AND a viewing fee to have an enjoyable movie experience again. Bring back the ushers!
{sarcasm} Like how gun manufacturers aid and abet armed robbery? We should make banks liable for aiding the purchase of guns used by criminals too. We should make banks liable for the millions of people that use credit cards to purchase fast food 7 days a week and consequently become obese too! And how about blaming the banks as well for whenever the credit card is outright stolen? They should have a 24/7 surveillance on every card, right? It's best if everyone's privacy is completely invaded so that the few among us without common sense don't get ripped off when they purchase something from a highly suspicious website, to which they were directed from an atrociously juvenile email, riddled with nonsense words! Those poor souls!{/sarcasm}
Unless a bank is partner to the actual deception itself, keep the blame on those who are committing fraud. The only buck that should be passed on, is to the irresponsibility of those without common sense that actually choose to pay attention to spam.
I, for one, am sick and tired of paying the price of lost rights due to those few people that adamantly refuse to take responsibility. I still love the following example that was posted a while back:
As someone already noted below, special effects are getting better every year. From that alone, your statement would be true. But acting skills haven't improved much, especially in under budgeted sci-fi flicks. The experience will be different from a movie that spoon-feeds you what someone else decides you should know. In a novel, details are important, but each individual may read a character differently. It's also important to note that some things simply don't transfer well to screen. Heck, some things in books never even make it to the screen, and in many cases, it's a crucial difference.
This last New Years, I made a resolution to read 100 books this year. I simply wanted to expand my concentration and know more about novels. I had a limited experience in classes, and like most others here, did not enjoy the vast majority that was handed down as an assignment. I felt like I was missing out, and wanted to know why. Through the course of my reading, I have seen through the eyes of characters, instead of merely observed them.
No point in listing everything I've read, so here are my two favorites so far. "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley is absolutely nothing like the ridiculous movies. Instead, it is a gruesome and touching story of a creature created without any access to the comforts of love and friendship. In the story, the obscenity of the creature can be fully explained due to the full details of the time period. In a movie, this is somewhat lost because of lack of time. You can show the time, via costumes and fancy sets, but you can't completely empathize with the characters. Reading "Frankenstein", you see how crucial this is to a fabulous novel. I hope to teach someday, and this will definitely be on the reading list.
Second recommendation is the extremely short but immensely funny "Candide" by Voltaire. Subversively political and almost crude in terms of the sexuality and lifestyles, it follows a section of life of a young man, who seems a bit too innocent compared to those around him. It's short enough to be read in a single day (or a few hours) and is definitely neither something you will probably ever read in high school or college (unless you're lucky) nor see at a movie (but maybe a play or tv short).
Do you really remember significantly more detail about a story from reading a book than from seeing a movie?
Absolutely. I remember images from movies, but with books I remember entire scenes, emotions of the characters and minute details about the whole story. I read because I want to know more. I read because I want to expand both my vocabulary and language skills. I read because movies are expensive and generally unsatisfying, and TV is filled with reality crap. I love the internet for the tidbits it provides, but it is honestly enjoyable to stretch out a story over a week. To feel in a rush to get home so that I can find out what happens next. It's like an On-Demand miniseries :P
When I've read a new book, the first thing I want to do is discuss it with other people.
Either: 1) Actually recommend the book to a friend and ask them to read it too. or 2) Join a book club. Besides that, your choice of actions should not be determined by what everyone else is doing, especially if it sucks. I've read a few books that were recommended by friends and am glad I did. The experience will be shared if you make an active effort.
He doesn't associate known names with unknown objects.
With regards to your frisbee example, no, that is not what I was saying. I'm saying that a dog, child or other creature with a good memory likely will not 'misassociate' words and objects. In that, if you teach it "ball" and you teach it "hat", it won't suddenly decide that something it doesn't recognize, that is completely dissimilar to either a ball or a hat (such as a frog perhaps), is *also* a "ball".
And it's not really that you personally are arguing that the dog understands language, but how the media has chosen to present this report. Syntax is extremely important, and they have chosen to ignore the important differences in lieu of a big, fuzzy, happy story for pet owners to grin about.
I've had pets all my life, and I do believe there is higher-reasoning in their actions. But this article honestly doesn't tell readers anything more besides "dogs have memories".
No, it's not what "they" are doing. They are training an animal to respond to simple, memorized commands. By process of elimination, the dog can put together "thing I've never smelled" with "command I've never heard", since other objects are known in a prior environment. This action does not mean the dog understands "language". It is a one way interaction.
I work with young children (austic spectrum) who have trouble learning language. There is an obvious difference between following a rote command and getting feedback that proves active cognition. Other animals, such as Koko the gorilla who learned sign-language are much more impressive in this field. The animal could generate her own questions and pull answers together from a database of knowledge. There was active cognition involved in this.
The dog on the other hand merely memorized "new thing" and "new words". To prove that he truly understood the language itself, you would need to create a field of *all* new objects, then ask for it to choose something specific about one of them. If it was chosen right, you could then infer that there is a greater chance the basic concepts (the object + descriptor = target.. ex. ball + big = big ball) were being processed against other concepts.
With the children I work with, it is absolutely vital that we check question discrimination and comprehension of past memorization.. otherwise, it's just memory and answers to questions sound parroted, or robotic. As for "high-functioning creature", this would involve any animal that can perform problem solving tasks. Get fruit from jar, navigate through maze, respond to commands. It would not include animals that only respond on instinct, such as a fish that eats flakes when you feed him. High-functioning creatures have a good capacity for memory and problem-solving.
The fault of this experiment is that these "200 words" could have easily have been grunts, musical tones, or obscene hand gestures. There is nothing saying it has learned the words because there is nothing that has indicated they did any kind of discrimination trials. All they did was pair "new" with "new". [Additionally, the article even states that there is nothing that indicates the animal has an equally "rich" understanding of the phrases he *does* know.] That simply means the dog has a good memory. (He doesn't associate known names with unknown objects.) You test active cognition by presenting a field of objects, or worded question (depending on the desired response) by pairing something known with something unknown against wrong but similar answers.
To sum up, Rico essentially had a multiple choice test. Visually, it might have looked something like this:
1+1=
a) apple
b) dog
c) 2 !!! PICK THIS ONE !!!
d) car
And typically, when we test comprehension, we don't give away the answers as that completely defeats the point. Understanding the difference between memory and active cognition is important when you want to go trumpeting the language comprehension of any creature. If you want more proof, try working with humans who have difficulty with language, so that you can learn this crucial difference hands-on.
I don't find it impressive either. What would have been a better display of reasoning is to teach the dogs adjectives or attributes. Big vs little, hard vs soft, light vs heavy, then tell him to go pick, from a group of all new toys, one that had a specific combination of attributes. "Go get the big, soft, heavy ball" Anything else is just process of elimination, which all high-functioning creatures can do to some extent.
This is some of the best advice I've read so far in this swamp of "get over yourself" and "life sucks, so start sucking" comments. Do something that will really challenge you, but not just for the sake of it being hard. Do it because you know you have the ability. Prove it to yourself and others. Most importantly, find something you are absolutely, without a doubt, passionate about.
I'm an INTP myself and have had almost identical experiences that you described. The difference is that I also did them while in college for the first several years, without knowing what I really wanted to do. I've had 6 majors during my academic career while considering countless more. Everything interests me on a fundamental level, and thus, I'm distracted by everything. I want to keep switching around, trying new things..etc.
It wasn't until about a year ago I realized what I was doing wrong. I hated the way classes are set up, how they seem go so slow.. and how so often, they were utterly pointless. I had wasted years of my life in subjects I was not intrinsically interested in AND that were easy enough for me to basically ignore. Passion towards a subject is absolutely vital to people like us as it gives us a much needed focus to achieve. Otherwise, we just drift off into a sea of endless exploration and mediocre achievements.
For me, and many may find this ironic, it turns out that my passion is education. A subject I swore I would never get into, that I hated because of all the lousy teachers I encountered, has become my point of focus. I am absolutely driven now to become a teacher that is *good* and hopefully, will inspire students to both love learning and take it seriously. Find your passion and you will find the focus that you need to prove to yourself, and everyone, just how much potential you really have. Hard classes will push you to succeed (if at least for the sake of your ego) and will end up teaching you the skills you need to be focused as well. Good Luck!
-Loyal AB Groupie
The Constitution says nothing about a right to "privacy". What it does address are individual liberties and protection from unreasonable search and seizures. Concretely, this is explicitly expressed in two ways. 1) There needs to be a reason for law enforcement to come into your house, sniff around, and take your possessions. 2) You are responsible for yourself and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So technically, while public places are public, that still doesn't mean a police officer can come up to you, without provocation or prior reason and demand your papers. He might ask you questions in relation to a nearby crime scene, or if you live nearby, but these are relevant to investigation. What is not relevant is keeping tabs on everybody, everywhere.
There must be a reason for specific intrusion to your life. (Warrants) There must be a reason for them to keep track of your movements and persuit of happiness. (Taps) There must be a reason to restrict your actions and liberty. (Security check points).
Allowing a government to walk over either of these ideals strips us away from our fundamental liberties as human beings and American citizens.