A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Best OS So Far



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 17, 03:31 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Best OS So Far

"Wolf K" wrote

| The mistake is to think "critical thinking" is a some kind of generic
| skill. It isn't. Neither is writing. You can teach people how to write a
| history paper, and/or an English essay, and/or a science paper, etc, and
| the thinking that goes along with each. You can't teach any skill in the
| abstract.

Maybe critical thinking isn't the best term to use.
Some basic skills can be taught, surely. Writing can
be taught as a mode of expression. Vocabulary.
Parts of speech. Sentence structure. The specific
techniques for writing a history paper or science
paper would be separate from the ability to
express ideas clearly, in full sentences. Isn't
that literacy, after all? Going further, I don't
see why students can't also be acclimated
to gathering their thoughts. But that's not
what's being asked of them. They're asked
to imitate the appearance of intelligence. To
accord with requirements. To write to the
test. So that's what they do.
(Then, presumably, Microsoft
hires them to write highfalutin nonsense like,
"Leveraging next-gen technologies to solutionize
problems across the enterprise will be the principal
applicational transaction of our new bleeding-edge
tool, Success Enhancing Support and Fulfillment
Framework, or SESFF.")

I wouldn't say that person has critical thinking
ability. They don't know they're writing nonsense.
They just mimic a style of stringing together
fashionable trigger words.

I guess what I'm thinking of, which seems to be
missing, is intelligent attention, or capable reflection.
I'm not a teacher, but I suspect that could be taught
by encouraging students to figure things out for
themselves. It's my impression that higher education
used to be exactly that. Teaching people to think
so that they could go on to be leaders, rather than
just selling them social connections and terminology
so that they could go on to make 6 figures as cogs
in the machinery.


Ads
  #2  
Old January 21st 17, 11:55 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default Best OS So Far

On 1/21/2017 6:31 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Wolf K" wrote

| The mistake is to think "critical thinking" is a some kind of generic
| skill. It isn't. Neither is writing. You can teach people how to write a
| history paper, and/or an English essay, and/or a science paper, etc, and
| the thinking that goes along with each. You can't teach any skill in the
| abstract.

Maybe critical thinking isn't the best term to use.
Some basic skills can be taught, surely. Writing can
be taught as a mode of expression. Vocabulary.
Parts of speech. Sentence structure. The specific
techniques for writing a history paper or science
paper would be separate from the ability to
express ideas clearly, in full sentences. Isn't
that literacy, after all? Going further, I don't
see why students can't also be acclimated
to gathering their thoughts. But that's not
what's being asked of them. They're asked
to imitate the appearance of intelligence. To
accord with requirements. To write to the
test. So that's what they do.
(Then, presumably, Microsoft
hires them to write highfalutin nonsense like,
"Leveraging next-gen technologies to solutionize
problems across the enterprise will be the principal
applicational transaction of our new bleeding-edge
tool, Success Enhancing Support and Fulfillment
Framework, or SESFF.")

I wouldn't say that person has critical thinking
ability. They don't know they're writing nonsense.
They just mimic a style of stringing together
fashionable trigger words.

I guess what I'm thinking of, which seems to be
missing, is intelligent attention, or capable reflection.
I'm not a teacher, but I suspect that could be taught
by encouraging students to figure things out for
themselves. It's my impression that higher education
used to be exactly that. Teaching people to think
so that they could go on to be leaders, rather than
just selling them social connections and terminology
so that they could go on to make 6 figures as cogs
in the machinery.


YES!
I spent a lot of years selecting and managing engineers.
I've known many very smart engineers with specific skills.
I've known very few who have what you called
intelligent attention.

You can teach an engineer HOW to bias a transistor.
It's much more difficult to teach them to imagine that a
transistor has useful characteristics outside the
mainstream of providing gain. 40 years ago, I suggested
building a switching power supply based on a Johnson counter.
Engineers told me I was crazy, but it worked first time.

You can teach 'em to HOW simulate a circuit.
It's much more difficult to teach them to decide
WHAT to simulate.

Most any endeavor can be modeled as a decision tree.
Most people pick a branch and head up the tree.
They're so invested in their chosen branch that
they don't even consider the possibility that
they might be better off on a different branch.

I've been unsuccessful teaching an engineer to:
think/extrapolate beyond his experience
put himself into the mindset of the user of the product
see the big picture

I never had any kids, so I can't access early life pliability,
but by the time they get to the workforce, they either have
it or they don't. They seem to understand the concept,
they're just unable to embrace it.

Since the same thing happens with management, people who
do have the skills are "troublemakers" and are suppressed.
The deck is stacked in favor of people who tell you what
you want to hear.

People actively resist concepts that they didn't conceive
or come from outside their focus area.

I used to crash meetings of other design teams.
The conversation went something like:

If you implemented this capability, you'd solve these
user problems and sell more stuff.

You're an idiot, it's not in the spec.

Well, what if you...?

Maybe, but we can't do that.

Ok, here's one way to do that...

Hmmm, but you're still an idiot.

Two years later, I get a copy of the patent
with me named as co-inventor. Most
teams I invaded were not that generous.




  #3  
Old January 22nd 17, 10:40 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Best OS So Far

In message , mike
writes:
[]
YES!

[]
I've been unsuccessful teaching an engineer to:
think/extrapolate beyond his experience
put himself into the mindset of the user of the product
see the big picture


Or the maintainer of the product. I work in the tail-end department -
R&S, which is nominally "readiness and sustainment" (!), but everyone
knows is really repairs and spares. Since it's avionics, this involves
equipment often decades old - people, especially military, expect
aircraft to last (and be supported) for a LONG time.

Lots of the kit I work on was clearly _not_ designed by someone who put
themselves into the mindset of the maintainer: it can take half an
hour's dismantling (and that's with practice) to get at something
trivial, probably involving the destruction and thus replacement of some
parts - which a little more thought at the design stage could have made
so much easier.

(To remain vaguely on-topic: this also applies to the software, in some
ways - both that in the product, and that in the test equipment. Though
the chances of _changing_ either of those are remote anyway, the source
code having been lost, and/or the compilers necessary being obsolete.)
[]
Since the same thing happens with management, people who
do have the skills are "troublemakers" and are suppressed.


BIG grin and +1!
[]
If you implemented this capability, you'd solve these
user problems and sell more stuff.

You're an idiot, it's not in the spec.

[]
You're preaching to the choir here! I have many suggestions in our
company's suggestion scheme (jokingly called "Empower" - as if!), most
of which were made not to get kudos but actually to improve things and
make life easier for others, but which have been set aside because
implementing them would be too much effort, as a one-off exercise, for
someone (probably not connected with those it would help).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices." - William James
  #4  
Old January 22nd 17, 10:46 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Best OS So Far

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2017-01-21 17:55, mike wrote:
[...]
I've been unsuccessful teaching an engineer to:
think/extrapolate beyond his experience
put himself into the mindset of the user of the product
see the big picture

[...]

I started out to be an engineer. Switched for several reasons, none of
which had to do with my classmates, who pretty good guys. Except they
really didn't get poetry.

Have a good day,

Ah, the old arts/sciences divide. I've actually met more scientists, and
engineers, with a smattering (sometimes quite extensive) knowledge of,
and interest in, the arts (music, literature, language, ...), than vice
versa. This is not _entirely_ the fault of the individuals - the
education system has some considerable responsibility too. And society
in general (perhaps more in UK than USA), that considers us "trade", not
"a higher calling". I think a lot more people would be _interested_ in
how things work (including software) if they weren't afraid of looking
nerdy, and similar words/attitudes.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices." - William James
  #5  
Old January 22nd 17, 05:11 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Best OS So Far

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I started out to be an engineer. Switched for several reasons, none of
| which had to do with my classmates, who pretty good guys. Except they
| really didn't get poetry.

| Ah, the old arts/sciences divide. I've actually met more scientists, and
| engineers, with a smattering (sometimes quite extensive) knowledge of,
| and interest in, the arts (music, literature, language, ...), than vice
| versa. This is not _entirely_ the fault of the individuals - the
| education system has some considerable responsibility too.

I guess that's the nature vs nurture question. I can
certainly see aptitude and personal affinity as a factor.
Yet people can also learn. I got into web design because
I have an affinity for graphics. I got into programming
because I was hooked by the problem-solving-with-linear-
thinking mode. I've noticed that my thinking actually
becomes less poetic, less creative and layered, when I
do a lot of programming, which is a world of mechanics.
I'm neither an exceptional artist nor an exceptional
programmer. But I am a good generalist who can code
the software, design the UI, and write the help file. I
think those are different modes and that people have
different propensities.

Probably I could be taught to dance and sing, but that
would take a great deal of effort on my part, going against
my own tendencies, and it would take a patient teacher.
There would need to be a good reason for both of us
to make the effort. Programming, by contrast, was more
like a fever. I couldn't help myself learning it.

So I guess that's the intersection of nature and nurture.
The nurturing usually takes better when nature supports it.
But I still think there's also another category of "learning
to think", or the capacity for reflection, which doesn't
necessarily require intellect, artistic bent, or any other
propensity.
A simple example: The geek and the artist
have lunch together and both have a fast-food hamburger,
a soda and a candy bar. Why would they eat such poor
quality food? Because they're addicted to the flavors and
just never thought to pay attention to their diets. It's
"not their thing". Then both take an antacid and go home,
take a sleeping pill, and go to bed. In the morning they both
take a happy pill (perhaps a neurotransmitter-reuptake
inhibitor), along with ibuprofen for their sore back, and
head off to work. The geek drives because he hates all those
people on the bus. The artist takes the bus because his
car has been out of commission for 3 months as he waffles
about getting the muffler fixed....
.... Those are typical scenarios. People who might be
regarded as brilliant and yet lack the basic capacity to
live their lives properly in numerous areas because they
don't actually reflect on, or pay attention to, anything.
They simply move from one fascination to the next. And
some of their fascinations just happen to produce good
software or a good painting. (Both geeks and artists are
often proud to be childish and unsocialized, as though it
proves their brilliance.)

Even that geek may not notice that a DOC is not
the same as a DOCX. That geek may actually use MS Word
or Libre Office without ever knowing where his docs are.
(I know a router programmer who works in C but seems
to have never emtied his Recycle Bin. He's oblivious to
computer expertise on the user level.)

| And society
| in general (perhaps more in UK than USA), that considers us "trade", not
| "a higher calling".

I think the software world has changed things. An
engineer used to be someone with an advanced
degree who designed bridges, or electrical components,
or car engines. They were structural engineers, or
electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers. These
days an engineer is like a "consultant" or an administrative
assistant. It's likely to be a valorizing euphemism
for a less skilled job. Often the "engineer" is just a
college student who does grunt work on a website.
Often their boss encourages the title to keep the
employee happy with low pay. Probably the vast
majority of engineers in the software world do not have
engineering degrees.
It's been an interesting process in the past decade
or two, as tech people try to establish status. Software
writers have been referred to as authors, developers,
architects, builders, and now engineers. They've hopped
around to every position in the building trades, finally
stopping at the one that requires the most official
credentials.


  #6  
Old January 23rd 17, 10:03 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Best OS So Far

In message , Wolf K
writes:
[]
The fact is, people self-select for study and career, and engineers, as
a group, avoid artsy stuff, while arts students avoid geeky stuff.


Why is only science-y stuff referred to as geeky? (I. e. why does
[nearly] nobody ever refer to an arts geek?)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark
to read." - Groucho Marx
  #7  
Old January 23rd 17, 10:13 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Best OS So Far

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:03:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Wolf K
writes:
[]
The fact is, people self-select for study and career, and engineers, as
a group, avoid artsy stuff, while arts students avoid geeky stuff.


Why is only science-y stuff referred to as geeky? (I. e. why does
[nearly] nobody ever refer to an arts geek?)




Do you know what the word "geek" originally referred to?

A geek was someone in a sideshow at a circus--typically someone who
did things like biting the heads of live chickens.

I never want to be called a geek.

  #8  
Old January 24th 17, 02:23 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Best OS So Far

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Why is only science-y stuff referred to as geeky? (I. e. why does
| [nearly] nobody ever refer to an arts geek?)

Interesting question. I think it's probably
because science people are less likely to
be socialized and less likely to relate to
other areas of knowledge and experience.
They tend to think they know the stuff that
matters. Artists see a place for scientists.
Scientists don't see a place for artists. Which
makes science people often stick out.

I don't think that's really a science thing,
though. Tech people are far more likely to
be socially dysfunctional than general
scientists. Scientists do creative thinking.
Geeks think like machines.


  #9  
Old January 24th 17, 11:25 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Best OS So Far

Wolf K wrote:


The fact is, people self-select for study and career, and engineers, as
a group, avoid artsy stuff


The English department gives straight C marks to STEM
students, when they join an English lit class.

What incentive is there, to take courses like that ?
Masochism ? If the playing field is not level,
"get off the playing field". That's how it works.

Paul
  #10  
Old January 24th 17, 12:31 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Best OS So Far

Mayayana wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Why is only science-y stuff referred to as geeky? (I. e. why does
| [nearly] nobody ever refer to an arts geek?)

Interesting question. I think it's probably
because science people are less likely to
be socialized and less likely to relate to
other areas of knowledge and experience.
They tend to think they know the stuff that
matters. Artists see a place for scientists.
Scientists don't see a place for artists. Which
makes science people often stick out.

I don't think that's really a science thing,
though. Tech people are far more likely to
be socially dysfunctional than general
scientists. Scientists do creative thinking.
Geeks think like machines.


In a typical curriculum, how many electives are there ?
And how many courses are "core" and unavoidable ?

It would be pretty hard to make a dent in the humanities,
when you have your regular course load to worry about.

I took Introductory German (with at least two hours a week
of speaking in German), Psych 100, Economics (ugh!), and
Statistics for Nitwits (a summer course). Those were some
of my electives. The psychology course was unintentionally
the most educational - part of the course involves you
volunteering six hours of your time over the year, to be
a guinea pig for second year students carrying out some
of the classic experiments. (You know, the experiment
where a person in a white coat [an authority figure],
tells you to give an electric shock to someone in the
next room [who shrieks or whines in a convincing
manner, as they're in on it]. You could say, in a
sense, "I've taken a Theater course" :-) I found these
to be very educational. The setups were *quite* elaborate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Paul
  #11  
Old January 24th 17, 04:20 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Best OS So Far

"Paul" wrote

| It would be pretty hard to make a dent in the humanities,
| when you have your regular course load to worry about.
|

That sounds like geek thinking.

As WolfK said, you self-selected. To me it's an
expression of both themes that we're talking about:
On the one hand, you tended to avoid topics that
were not interesting to you. (Just as most people
avoid computers.) Also, your college didn't make
any effort to expose you to other topics. Colleges
have become little more than vocational school for
white collar people. That results in people who are
even less well-adapted to life than when they
went in. They come out well-adapted only to their
chosen field of work. Thus, grade school teachers
who don't know a doc from a docx and can't write
coherently, and tech people who can't dress or
feed themselves properly.

At one point I worked as a janitor at Harvard Business
School, back in the early 80s. (Only for 90 days. Harvard
was among the first to come up with the clever idea that
if all workers were temps then Harvard wouldn't have to
provide union employee benefits because no one would
ever get into the union... They're not the top school for
nothing.
It was part of my job to follow after today's Fortune 500
CEOs when they had a break between classes, and pick up
their candy wrappers off the floor as they hussled to cram
in junk food from vending machines before their next class.
Future world leaders, yet they couldn't feed themselves
properly and couldn't clean up after themselves any better
than a dog. The hallways were a stunning sight after those
24-25-year-olds stampeded through. And of course, they
were never going to be trained in any such "irrelevant"
matters. They were in training to make big money. They'd
have spouses or assistants to handle their inability to
conduct their lives properly.
I'd guess the same situation probably holds today, except
that the students are probably waving their cellphones at
the vending machines, to pay $2 for a bottle of
brand-name water, and eating "power bars" -- candy
masquerading as healthy food. Snickers bars and soda are
for the hoi polloi who don't know any better, after all.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.