CATEGORY:
How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014)
[back]
TOPIC:
Graduated Certification for Applying Common Sense by James Dunn
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author James Dunn wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 20:29 GMT
Essay AbstractAt every level of social, professional, and community development, a too often heard phrase is "no common sense". Asserted to describe a person, office of personnel, or even an entire profession that should have been able to anticipate reasonably likely outcomes, ... but did not. Social dysfunction has come to be the norm and is no longer noteworthy in news. To have high-tech tools like that of warping space-time, peoples universally must be able to make broadly considered decisions and live in a society almost devoid of corruption and self-destructive tendencies. This essay describes a system to evolve the broad teaching of common sense and related strategic planning, in a structure that provides for broad dissemination internationally. Promoting broad international economic development to financially support the creation and careful handling of future technologies.
Author BioJames Dunn is an electrical engineer experienced in electronic hardware design, grant program management, project management, and educational materials development.
Download Essay PDF File
Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 04:33 GMT
Hi James,
I have read your surprising essay. I am surprised that you think common sense needs teaching and certifying. I thought it was called common because most people seem to acquire it one way or another.
I live in a country where it seems that you need a certificate for almost every kind of work, even those that would appear to require only common sense. So maybe that shortfall in education is already being addressed here.
I think the world's problems are going to require more than general standards of common sense. Rather world wide changes in culture including; belief systems, economic systems, lifestyle, procreation, attitude to health, reasoning, functioning and more is required. Though I suppose more common sense would be a good start. Thanks for a good read. Georgina
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 05:48 GMT
Thank you for your reply.
Common Sense are information processes "commonly" needed by a social group. This does not mean that every person possesses those skills. An auto-mechanic is quite adept within a social group related to repairing cars. Within that social group the auto-mechanic has developed many skills and systems of understanding related to social, emotional, and communication...
view entire post
Thank you for your reply.
Common Sense are information processes "commonly" needed by a social group. This does not mean that every person possesses those skills. An auto-mechanic is quite adept within a social group related to repairing cars. Within that social group the auto-mechanic has developed many skills and systems of understanding related to social, emotional, and communication processes with other mechanics, customers, vendors...
But take that same mechanic and put them in their state's house of Representatives and their self-esteem is no longer as strong. They will tend to doubt their own understanding of an issue and confer their beliefs to the social authorities of the Representatives. This is in-part justified. We do not want to harm others due to our own ignorance (lack of knowledge). Of great importance when changing social groups is the ability to efficiently teach one's self. This is what schools are primarily supposed to be teaching. So that students can become experts at anything passionately pursued.
This new social group they have entered has developed many skills and social circles the mechanic is as yet unaware.
Common Sense = Self-esteem + Logic + Predicting Consequences
Respect is attained by teaching one's self something that is useful for their social group. The teaching of this information to others in the group provides others with the potential of helping the group and being appreciated (social). If the information is useful, others in the group confer trust in who taught them. This trust is Respect. If the information is faulty, then instead of trust disdain is conferred.
The accumulation of trust and disdain provide the components and relative levels of self-esteem. A healthy group exchanges roles as originator and receiver of information.
An unhealthy social group is where information is only passed in one direction. People that are Arrogant (loathing of others).
An Arrogant person tends to exclude themselves from social groups. Provide an Arrogant person with the means to exclude others from an opportunity and what will happen?
Children learn very quickly when they engage in teaching each other; sharing respect for each other. In Middle School here in the USA, teachers tend to instruct students to sit quietly and listen to the teacher. This has the action of preventing students from teaching each other, isolating each student from being able to acquire respect from their peers. The result is a loss of self-esteem, a loss of common sense. The students when introduced to drugs, alcohol, ... that have not developed self-esteem and confidence in applying logic and predicting consequences, harm themselves in what they perceive as a strong social group.
My personal observations are that students graduating high school are not developing the skills of common sense associated with the environments they transition into: jobs, college classes, parent ...
My concern is that technologies related to manipulating space-time are in our not too distant future. The destructive potential is tremendous. For example: DARPA QUEST is attempting to have develop a quantum camera. This would potentially allow "interactive" framing of any reference in the Universe. There would be no security for anyone, anywhere.
I have no problem with sharing anything you want to know about me in an ethical environment; bank account numbers, income, SSN, ... Who are we going to trust with this technology? I said interactive. In addition to reading, the atoms can be changed.
Pie in the sky, it hasn't happened yet.
But we need to change the genetically engineered human that can't think further than the end of their spear. This will take time. We need people to think about consequences decades into the future, globally. When space-time manipulation technology arrives, we will need to have the ability to relate to consequences for thousands of years and throughout the Universe.
Baby steps now, and build capacity for later.
The more children are able to surpass our abilities, the greater likelihood they will surpass our own successes; international economic development, environmental responsibility, conservation of resources ...
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 13:30 GMT
Thanks for explaining.Georgina
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 14:35 GMT
I just realized I did not convey why "Certification" is needed, and not just posting information on a website.
Expressing one's self using Critical Thinking and Predicting Consequences cannot be learned without recurring practiced efforts. The human mind reuses old habits. Expressing something irrationally does not change without Refereed constructive criticism.
Self-Esteem is often profession-centered. To evaluate one's self requires assessment modeled based upon the actual profession and the characteristics of the related social group.
These are extensive tasks.
To pay for the expertise to model assessments specific to an individual needs funding. The act of Certification provides a business system to support broad applicability.
Any good intention without a business model is without merit; it is not practical.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 08:22 GMT
Dear James,
I read your essay and tried to follow you in your thoughts, because for me it is "common sense" to respect the opinion of others.
My opinion is that "common sense" is an emerging quality of a group of individuals, you say it can be learned, but you can also learn in the wrong group the wrong sense. It is however always the individual with his own "I" and his consciousness who will yes or no accept RULES that seem to be common. Indeed you can learn these rules and get a licence for that knowledge, which does not mean that you agree with the rules.
Only when the "mentality" of the individuals is changing from "egoistic profit economy" to "living blissful together" with as you mention "voluntary activities" that give a good feeling to "everyone" then we are moving on to a better world.
All together the essays of this contest are the building blocks for a change of mentality mentality, and I think we should value that, so if you have some spare time please read
my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?" and eventually give it a rating at the scale of your appreciation.
best regards
ilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 11:40 GMT
Ilhelmus,
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "voluntary activities". "Voluntary" does not occur in my writings. Perhaps the meaning of voluntary was inferred by something I wrote.
We do not offer Respect to people that are new to our social group. We offer them the opportunity to build respect by listening and watching them in the hope they have something useful...
view entire post
Ilhelmus,
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "voluntary activities". "Voluntary" does not occur in my writings. Perhaps the meaning of voluntary was inferred by something I wrote.
We do not offer Respect to people that are new to our social group. We offer them the opportunity to build respect by listening and watching them in the hope they have something useful to offer. Respect is not given, it is earned.
The use of logic (Critical Thinking) and predicting consequences is needed by almost every social group to grow. Irrational (logically wrong) expressions and short-sighted decisions (not able to predict consequences) harm not only the social group, but society as a whole. I have been working with a drug addict for about 9 years. The effort to rationalize (find expressions that sound like they support a position) a behavior is always flawed, but the human mind does not want to recognize its' own short comings.
By broadly introducing Critical Thinking and Predicting Consequences into social groups raises the bar broadly to live without supporting corruption.
Definition: Corruption = "unethical allocation"
When related to the legal system, then "illegal allocation".
Most people can not define corruption in an actionable sense. Therefore, the working structure of corruption is hard to identify. But knowing that unethical allocation of opportunities and/or resources is corruption, then a person can actively destabilize the corrupt activities.
Respect when strong is based in trust. Trust is a basis for collaboration. Collaboration is needed to leverage opportunities to generate a return on investment. Logic and Predicting Consequences is required to support ethical social relationships. Ethical relationships coupled with Common Sense (as I defined) provide the tools to identify, develop, and manage low-risk and significant opportunities to produce a significant return on investment.
The alternative to not having the skills to support Common Sense is unethical behaviors. This causes degradation of trust and only minor collaboration. Only high-risk or insignificant opportunities can be acted upon.
Usually, successful corporations that are involved with unethical efforts, strongly enforce ethical behavior of their employees. But they create a boundary where control of assets are manipulated by unethical people. So the majority of assets being built are by ethical peoples. But assets are utilized unethically by corporate corruption at higher levels of administration.
I don't believe a person that is not a significant part of a corporation can pass judgment upon them. For a corporation to be viable (supporting the lives of many people), certain relationships are sustainably needed to be implemented. However, I believe that if more people broadly had strong skills in implementing Common Sense (as I defined), then unethical allocation of opportunities become less prevalent.
Currently wars dominantly are created by powerful groups of people to steal the resources of other people. The local people are manipulated into believing in a higher cause, but the actual purpose is the stealing of resources. The lack of Common Sense (as I defined) of the people at-large allows them to be easily manipulated.
I believe far greater economic development occurs when broad trust through consistent application of logic and predicting consequences is present.
I will be visiting your essay.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 17:35 GMT
“I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "voluntary activities". "Voluntary" does not occur in my writings.”
Wilde seems to like manufacturing things people don’t say or mean. Then he puts them in quotes and attributes them to us. He did it to me as well. Not collegial.
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear James,
Conscience is the only true common sense we all share.
Please read
Levels of consciousness.
I have created a custom search engine and a portal of portals
Any Body Can Do - Everything For Good to popularize the truth of our common sense or conscience.
I am a father of 3 little boys of ages 8,6 and 3 and I know it is not an easy task to teach them some good behavior and not to fight with each other with out enticing them with some gifts. It's amazing how even though they are biological brothers in the shorter frame of time and space of a single family, they tend to fight so vehemently sometimes. Now I can understand this situation extrapolated to a large scale of human kind, which easily forgets the truth of brotherhood and fights. It is for this reason we need to find ways to remind us all of who we really are and hence the fancy website to grab the attention. You might find categories in the website which are purely entertaining as it is a crucial part of enticing an ever wandering human mind.
"I thinks, therefore we are"
I thank you for your work and I hope you will adopt and spread your alter egos work of "Any Body Can Do - Everything For Good" as well.
Love,
I.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 17:56 GMT
I.,
My concern here is that "Good" is most often interpreted based on personal perspective and not Universal perspective. What is Good for a church pastor can be devastating to someone of another religion. Opportunities are often denied persons based upon religious preference.
Good and Evil are words used most often to manipulate political influence to support personal agendas. There is no Evil or Good in actionable terms other than politics.
To destroy Evil, simply never again speak of it.
Ethiical is much different than Good. Good references the individual, while ethical references everything, everywhere, for all time domains. Due to our current limitations, ethics is narrowly considered.
Remember the "Prime Directive" from Star Trek. I think it should be to promote and sustain the greatest diversity of life. Which may one day mean the extinction of humans to protect the Universe, or other universes.
Broad consideration does not necessarily put humans on top. Especially when we are the cause of broad destruction.
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
James,
Certainly common sense and critical thinking are a requirement for a society that must consider a viable future that insures long-term survival. I don't believe that any of us know just how to accomplish that worthy goal. Certainly the qualities you mention are needed, and your corporate-type structure and your application examples help to make it possible. Certainly long-term planning is an element if you think and plan in a reasonable fashion.
My problem too is knowing not only what should be done but also what isn't done. How to approach it and emit the type of behavior required is another matter. Your ingredients are sound.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 10:22 GMT
Jim,
Not knowing what isn't done is a re-application of predicting consequences. In the profession of "Project Management" and "Program Management" (supervisory) these advanced skills are called "Requirements Management" and "Risk Management". The following is just a rough overview off the top of my head.
When a program manager first is introduced to forming a project, a...
view entire post
Jim,
Not knowing what isn't done is a re-application of predicting consequences. In the profession of "Project Management" and "Program Management" (supervisory) these advanced skills are called "Requirements Management" and "Risk Management". The following is just a rough overview off the top of my head.
When a program manager first is introduced to forming a project, a representative group of experts get together with the customer and their team to define a "Project Charter". This defines the central intents of what is to be accomplished and design decisions map back to this Project Charter throughout the project until deliverables are finished and delivered. Otherwise wasted time is spent wavering in determining what the customer "might" want, or can do without. The Project Charter becomes customer approved.
From the Project Charter the List of Requirements is built by a team of experts. These are all things that become implicitly stated from the Project Charter. For example: SAE Standards related to the build, Federal Government Guidelines, IEEE Standards ... Phases of development and related milestones, payment schedules, required reporting, detail depth of documentation, customer specific requirements ... list of deliverables.
Asset Management from the status of the previous and present projects in development are referred to help determine a timeline for development. Typically a Gantt Chart and/or Project Management Software is implemented.
Requirements Management and Risk Management worksheets are implemented to capture details of requirements and their costs and risks and their potential costs and related delays. Asset Management is referred to for estimating availability of resources.
So far, all of this has occurred without getting paid by the customer so previous profits from other projects must pay for these efforts. Cost estimating is done based upon past experience. This is where experience plays between profit, losing the bid, and law-suits/bankruptcy. The Program Manager is only partly responsible for cost estimating. Built into the cost is labor for covering some number of other project estimates where the customer will choose another company to do the work.
The Customer pays for Phase I and no further payment will be received until the first milestone and related deliverables are conveyed to the customer.
Next the Program Manager assembles a team of Project Managers. The team assembles a Statement of Work (SOW). The SOW details every step and every Work Order down to the largest reasonable effort that one person can reasonably accomplish with their known skill set and experience. The Team updates the Requirements Management and Risk Management worksheets as they discover new potential issues.
Then the team of Project Managers under the direction of the Program Manager schedule the expertise and material and begin development.
The coordination of Requirements Management, Timeline, and Risk Management are tightly monitored throughout the development to ensure what isn't yet done is completed on-schedule.
What you asked is an advanced skill of Common Sense where self-esteem in that environment in-part comes from practiced application and developing experience.
We all, including myself, can always improve our Common Sense skills related to the Social Group in which we are involved. Common Sense is Group-centric. For example, Common Sense between a Program Manager and a team of General Electric national defense contractors is very specific.
The Common Sense component of Self-esteem in that environment is based in a developed set of thumb-rules to deal with the emotional condition of team members, developed social etiquette that does not fully transfer to other companies, and systems of communication processes that are expected. These components can be documented so that a new Program Manager can come up to speed quickly in dealing with the specific National Defense Contractor to ensure that risks in obtaining the bid are minimized.
This is one application for having a certification program to help ensure selected Program Managers can quickly develop the "practiced" skills to engage in these high level negotiations.
However, for smaller projects just keep the equivalent of a grocery list. :.)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 19:11 GMT
James,
Time is growing short, so I am revisiting and rating.
You said in your response, "Common Sense is Group-centric." I can not agree more. My "common good" contention in Looking Beyond and Within is similar in meaning. The common good motivation and the concepts of using your brain (like Einstein) and looking beyond short-term gain is my ingredient for "steering" success.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 08:23 GMT
Hi James,
Very interesting essay, thank you! Teaching common sense is a honorable goal but teaching people who don't have the capacity to have such a skill is useless I'm afraid ;-)
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 11:25 GMT
I tend to disagree. We all have deficiencies as compared to others in specific situations. But I think you meant someone who is handicapped or a drug addict.
I have not as yet considered tools to address drug addicts as yet.
However, a person with ADHD has certain challenges to overcome. Typical symptoms include, but are not limited to: chronic tardiness, sloppy work, hostile to...
view entire post
I tend to disagree. We all have deficiencies as compared to others in specific situations. But I think you meant someone who is handicapped or a drug addict.
I have not as yet considered tools to address drug addicts as yet.
However, a person with ADHD has certain challenges to overcome. Typical symptoms include, but are not limited to: chronic tardiness, sloppy work, hostile to authority, procrastination, working harder not to accomplishing some task than just doing the task, hiding out ...
In the Common Sense structure that is being developed at www.UA-KiTS.com, are the beginning of tools to address certain personal challenges that people have.
One tool for those with ADHD is that when reading, every time a person notices their mind has drifted they should make a small mark at the top of the page. Use a Post-it if the page cannot be marked, or even put a Post-it on the top bezel of the computer display. The conscious act of making the mark over time will tend to train the mind to remain focused while reading.
This is just one of hundreds of techniques that are available to be taught to help persons with professional disabilities to compensate for their perceived lack of common sense.
A tool for the average person is Refereed Debate, and can be easily used in classrooms and meetings to multiply interactive experiential learning. A teacher/lecturer normally stands in front of a room and infrequently engages students/participants one at a time. The students/participants have no hope of sharing respect with their peers. Referred Debate can be set up with 3 to 10 participants in each group. The object is to find and support the best pathway to achieve a common goal.
The Referee is initially the person most experienced in critical thinking and predicting consequences. In grade school, this is the teacher. In a company meeting, this might be a program manager.
As certain participants reliably express themselves logically and with well-developed predicting of consequences, then they are rotated in as Referee.
The Referee verbally guides the expressions of debate participants to cite three categories of weakness: logical, path of consequences, sustainability. Additionally, the Referee verbally guides the expressions of debate participants to cite three categories of strength: emotional connectedness, social connectedness, and Clarity of processes. A list of points given or taken is provided to each participant before-hand.
Types of issues in each category might include: logical inconsistencies, holes in considerations, vagueness ... and points are charged to the participant.
The result is the sharing of Respect between participants as they teach each other useful relationships. The process is practiced experience. The educational platform is Project Based Learning (PBL). An entire rudiment project can mentally be planned in a few minutes by thinking through the needed requirements, risks, resource availability, and processes. Practiced expression quickly builds these skills where reading about it does little to change engrained behaviors.
These are just examples of what can be done with people who appear not able to learn common sense.
Please keep in mind that the non-profit 501(c)3 corporation is at present just a place-holder until I can find other people who have the philosophical, psychological, and logical skills to augment my own. I do not know everything .... yet :.) No really, knowledge is a continuous learning process.
Every certification agency (SAE, IEEE, AMA, ABPS ...) have all started with an Articles of Incorporation and incrementally grown. A complete solution is not needed up front. Continuous asserted effort builds resources quickly.
I am seeking persons that can contribute to development. I can perhaps obtain a grant to pay for the first phase of development and implementation if I can find persons with related recognized qualifications in philosophy, psychology, human resources administration ... support@ua-kits.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 12:19 GMT
Additionally,
The Referee in Refereed Debate is in a different position than the participant and continuously learns techniques and relationships. So the Referee is learning every bit as much as the participants.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 12:43 GMT
For those visiting this essay, I would appreciate if you would rate the topic as it relates to being able to take action to Steer the Future of Humanity. This topic is more than viable, there is a market need and funding resources to create a distributed self-sustaining implementation.
If you have any recognized qualifications and an interest in contributing to development, a grant application can be submitted to ED.gov and other organizations to pay contributors for their efforts.
support@ua-kits.com
UA-KiTS
Unlocking Aptitude - Knowledge in Translational States
report post as inappropriate
Alexandre de Pomposo wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear James,
Thank you for the score you gave to me. You are right about the missing part of providing sustainable support of investigative efforts. However, my article, being written by a physicist, hardly could deal with such items, and I wanted to put the accent on the epistemological attitude facing the legitimate unification of knowledge, of realities and, mainly, of humans. Indeed, I think that attitude is first; economics is later. As a matter of fact, one can find quite often such confusion in most of the western countries, namely, that prosperity in education comes from prosperity in economics; I think it is exactly the opposite.
You say well that we don’t even teach common sense at schools (neither public nor private): common notions are completely oriented to making money, to generate and utilize technologies, to worship the body, to be as popular as possible, to reach wealth at any price, and so on and so forth. In other words, we have consciously organized our world on an egoistic basis and, as a consequence, rather that dignifying the human individual by making him more responsible of the world, humans within, we block the natural volition of humankind to live with the others, to live for the others as the best possible self-service, to back feed a healthy self-esteem, … That’s why I believe science can become an area of hopefulness for humankind in the future, provided we actually understand the crucial role of self-critique in science generation and the importance of learning other ways of thinking the world and the whole reality. ¿Don’t you think so?
Best regards,
Alex
P.-S. I shall read your paper in detail. Only then, I will be able to making comments to you; however, I can see in advance that it will be an enjoying experience.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 16:58 GMT
I understand scope of practice has a lot to do with scope of publication. Your profession is interesting for me. Physicist?
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 02:26 GMT
Regarding why teaching Common Sense broadly is important to the future of physics.
If we are living in a construct that allows for simulation/virtual-consideration, then we ourselves may be able to use the underlying construct in Building Universes - Relativity from Quantum Causality.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0041v1.pdf
This is repeatedly implied elsewhere. What are the...
view entire post
Regarding why teaching Common Sense broadly is important to the future of physics.
If we are living in a construct that allows for simulation/virtual-consideration, then we ourselves may be able to use the underlying construct in Building Universes - Relativity from Quantum Causality.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0041v1.pdf
This is repeatedly implied elsewhere. What are the implications for intelligent life?
If you have a computer model, where there is environment evolved consciousness. Proposed elsewhere is a lack of substantive structure is an indication of a simulated environment. This is the realm of present particle physics and the Standard Model, there is nothing substantive below the size of an atom. Yet artifacts considered as subatomic particles have features larger than an atom; like boson. This contradiction seems to be supported by as yet non-observable systems of causal connectedness.
"Connectedness" is not a proper word. But it is a key feature in describing causality that exists despite and without direct reference to energy.
Energy has a component of m/s or space/time. As long as Qubits are related directly to space/time then energy is a required consideration. However, as in quantum entanglement, energy need not be a consideration related to a logic state. We may yet not have the means of creating an energy-less evolving causal state, but that does not mean it is not possible.
No two things can occupy the same space at the same time; in macro-physics. But in subatomic physics many things occupy the same space at the same time. There is no empty space anywhere in a Universe of Relativity.
Illusion is simply any system that is considered with incompletely considered perspectives. Everything we know is incomplete, so yes, cosmology from our perspectives is an illusion.
Probability, error tolerance, and limitations for approximations mask causality.
The contradiction between the macro and subatomic worlds seems to indicate a structural component of causality. Many more than one set of connectedness can share a causal component. The simple (exaggeration) shift of a causal connection is like the difference in spin observed in quantum entanglement. Seemingly instantaneous propagation. But outside of relativity, it is potentially just a slight shift between similar causal systems; energy-less.
The potential is that Building Universes - Relativity from Quantum Causality can be done without any energy at all except where we want to interface our space/time tools with the universes we build.
The universes we build need not have the same physics constants as our universe. As such, we can build alternate dimensional spaces. When interfaced with our universe; warping of space/time, worm holes, black holes, gateways between locations, quantum cameras ...
I believe we can build a mechanism to Exactly model our universe, and manipulate it to create computational systems. But the physical outcomes will exactly match physics and not the approximations provided by mathematics.
In any "real" physical environment, it would take an extraordinary number of seemingly abstract mathematics relationships to model the systems of relationships that are in constant change within a cubic centimeter. To do so without error is presently and for the foreseeable future impossible. A change in course on a practical pathway to manipulate space/time is needed.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0021v1.pdf
By using the structure of the universe to build a system for analyzing a piece within our universe (quantum camera), then we are not relying upon approximations. Math will likely still be used, to get us into the general area we want to be. But the quantum camera would respond and interact with the our universe exactly.
The quantum camera would be a subset of a universe that we build.
To be sure, this is not pie in the sky relationships.
Billions of dollars in grants are available for this type of research:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&i
d=7fa50ea731f2aa4529b223b7f5b38987&tab=core&_cview=1
Why is broadly teaching Common Sense imperative?
....
Who will control the technologies developed?
Business Model to Broadly teach Common Sense:
How should we steer the future of humanity?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2045
Method for ethically monitoring and eliminating all corrruption:
Corruption = unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities
http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com
Thes
e combined methods provide for eliminating corruption from both the Top/Down (management of NSA) AND Bottom/Up (broadly teaching Common Sense).
Broadly teaching Common Sense is vital to the ethical use of technologies developed by physicists.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 16:54 GMT
Common Sense ermöglicht Physik Karriere Straße.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Mr. Dunn,
I found your essay vastly entertaining, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I do have a minor quibble, and I do hope that you do not mind me raising it.
I have gone to great pains in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, to emphasize the fact that reality is unique. For instance, each real person has unique real fingerprints. Each real person has a unique dollop of real DNA, and each real person has unique real eyeballs. It must follow that each real person must have unique real intelligence. Your contention that: “There are three (abstract) types of (abstract) influence that are part of (abstract) Common Sense: (abstract) logical relationships and (abstract) perspectives, (abstract) emotional relationships and (abstract) perspectives and (abstract) social relationships and (abstract) perspectives. Please understand I am in no way trying to imply that although you appear to have mastered the requirements for understanding what abstract common sense might consist of, you do not seem to know much about reality. I would never really do that.
Top regards,
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 04:25 GMT
Joe,
Reality is composed of abstractions. Each person's partial perspectives of what is real to them is malleable.
Challenge: Name one thing you believe is real without contention.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 04:54 GMT
Joe,
I'm asking for a really hard example for me to consider.
Everyone has a unique fingerprint, for all people who have ever lived and who will ever live. Is that your contention?
You are certain that a closed causal system does not repeat. Is that your contention?
Each potential intelligence must have DNA. Is that your contention.
Persons born without eyes are not people. Is that your contention.
Intelligence is a set of abstractions that together fit current needs in most social groups. Obviously a social group inside an sanitarium may or may not be open to inclusion of irrational statements. The same for terrorist groups and others who demand compliance with irrational edicts.
But in business, engineering, science, medicine, pharmacology, the military, nuclear power plants ... rational behaviors depend upon the interrelationships of abstractions having to do with emotional, social, and communication processes.
Define one word that has the same exact meaning for all peoples; for all time.
I look forward to hearing of your one "real" thing that is real without contention. Anything that is based in a partial perspective is an illusion, and not real. The best we can do is attempt to provide the greatest useful utility with the broadest systems that we can perceive, and relate, while minimizing contradictions.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 14:33 GMT
Joe,
Perceived Reality only exsists within a subset of consistent perspectives without contradicting relationships.
A reality is a certain type of system of causal relativity.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
How come your comments do not appear headed in an orange box like an author's replies ought to do?
Sir, I pity you. You are suffering from a severe case of chronic informania. I have no need to prove that any real object is a real object. I am a real person.
With amicable regards,
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
Mr. Dunn,
I am truly sorry for the comments I have tarnished your essay entry comments boxes with. Please forgive me. My comments were unnecessary and totally uncalled for.
Regretfully,
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 15:56 GMT
Joe,
I looked for your essay, but could not find one listed. Involved perspectives often have useful information buried within them. I won't necessarily accept everything you have to share, but likely there will be relationships I will find interesting.
Respect is only acquired by the mutual sharing of useful information. As we teach each other something useful, trust is attributed within the context of consideration. This is universally how respect is directly acquired.
The opposite of respect is Disdain. Disdain is attributed when distrust is developed due to telling lies, deceitful omission, negligence ....
The combination of accumulated trust from Respect and Disdain form Self-Esteem within a particular social group.
So I appreciate your apology and remain open to hear your perspectives.
James
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 13:36 GMT
James,
Thank you for your tolerance.
My essay is called REALITY, ONCE. It was posted on February 11, 2014.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 16:45 GMT
James,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be advocating a system designed to help humans develop mental discipline; perhaps you would find the paper I reference in my own essay, "Contemplative Practices and Mental Training: Prospects for American Education", interesting. Your program seems rather ambitious and for certain the community of humans could use a bit more ethics and...
view entire post
James,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be advocating a system designed to help humans develop mental discipline; perhaps you would find the paper I reference in my own essay,
"Contemplative Practices and Mental Training: Prospects for American Education", interesting. Your program seems rather ambitious and for certain the community of humans could use a bit more ethics and rationality, the recent wars, manipulations, and financial instabilities being evidence of such; however, humans are not computers. Humans are notoriously irrational and occasionally irrational thoughts lead to novel and extremely valuable developments.
I believe this is probably why many organizations, such as IBM and NASA, have been working towards narrow-focused Artificial Intelligence (AI) for so long. These AI systems are built on foundations of probabilistic logic and have proven effective in many situations such as risk assessment (NASA) and, relevant to your example, medical diagnosis (IBM). But what these systems have not been able to improve on, or even mimic (to date), is the doctor's or engineer's creative intuition, an intuition which is often based in illogical thought processes - or so it would seem. Of course no formal proof, or, for that matter, convincing argument, demonstrating the inability of these systems to eventually mimic or exceed the creative abilities of humans has been forthcoming; hence, such a future situation would seem logically inevitable provided current trends continue. Some humans greatly fear just such a thing.
Forgive me for being mischievous, but in your "Trivial Application" you state, "working longer hours benefits both and is not a reason for higher wages;" having worked as an independent contractor and as the production manager of a medium sized manufacturing company, I feel qualified to say this is rarely, if ever, true. Typically, there are two primary situations in which an employer asks an employee to work overtime: when the employer is being incentivized to complete the project in an expedited manner; when someone in management, generally either bidding or scheduling, screws up.
Any employer competent enough to last in the business world has developed tried and true methods for including labor costs in their bid. Most employers actually profit, oftentimes rather handsomely, from their labor, even after all overhead is accounted for. And if a job is being expedited at customer request you better believe it's being incentivized with higher wages factored in; to not pay one's employees higher wages, i.e. time and one half, in such a scenario, would be highly unethical.
In the case of bidding, scheduling, or some other management error, paying higher wages for overtime introduces valuable feedback into the control system; if that feedback dictates, either replacing incompetent personnel (including the boss) or hiring additional employees may become economically justified.
Working longer hours does not always benefit employees; there are activities other than work which add considerable value to an employee's life which could become compromised when working longer hours. In both of the cases cited above, paying higher wages represents "common sense" and, in the case of America, it's also the law . . .
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 17:48 GMT
Wesley,
Humans well trained in logic do not seem to have a problem expressing themselves through art, music, software creations, culinary works ... The are often preoccupied by priorities, but they can generally teach themselves anything.
But the opposite does not seem to be true. People that dominantly express themselves irrationally, cannot sell their art works for significant...
view entire post
Wesley,
Humans well trained in logic do not seem to have a problem expressing themselves through art, music, software creations, culinary works ... The are often preoccupied by priorities, but they can generally teach themselves anything.
But the opposite does not seem to be true. People that dominantly express themselves irrationally, cannot sell their art works for significant profit margins and are unable to maintain productive business relationships. Irrational people are plagued by arrests and law suits, and are not offered as many significant opportunities due their unreliability and related risks they represent.
Regarding your perspective of working overtime as a pursuit by an employee to "create incentive" for an employer to pay higher wages. The complexity involved with that scenario is too involved for the short essay. However, with companies like Walmart, an employee working more than 30 hours a week can get fired because it costs Walmart much more to hire full-time employees than hiring "more" part-time employees. This also means more people are supported by Walmart; the scope of the essay is different than extensive discussion concerning human resources, company policies, and ethics. But, in-general, a management rule of thumb is that you are lucky if you get 6 hours of production out of an employee per day. So restricting an employee to 6 hours of work per day and 30 hours of work per week provides a greater return on investment for the employer. Employee's are often happier by having to work less hours if they live within their means. An employee that watches the clock to punch out is there to make money, not be productive.
I know a physician that makes $160,000 a year. They work 14 hours a day during weekdays, and 6 hours a day on weekends; always. No vacations. They have about $20,000 a year in professional expenses related to insurance, licensing... That is an average of $33/hour. They take home about $22/hour. They paid more than $220,000 in school loans. They worked more than 10,000 hours (5 years of a full-time person's job) for free to pay off their loans and interest. But they love their job! And they have personally helped more than 100,000 people with their health problems over their career so far. More if you include the physicians she has trained.
I "believe" that people with ADHD, diabetes, heart problems, genetic deformities ... all contribute to the diversity of humanity; in much more than just aesthetic inspirations. Systems must often mutate to evolve. Evolving often creates new traits that did not exist previously. Most of them fail to become sustainably supported. But eventually a trait is supported by an environment of relationships and it becomes a vital feature for human survival. Like being able to stand on two legs, articulating thumbs, cognition, geometric processing of the brain in terms of optical and tactile perception ...
Engineers often use Fuzzy Logic, Expert Systems, Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms ... to "hunt" for more optimal solutions. This is recognized in science and engineering and these systems can be quite complex depending upon the number of degrees of freedom being controlled. Degrees of freedom might be thought of a the number of dimensions being considered.
Artificial Intelligence is a bit of a different beast because of the number of dimensions involved, and the limited computation resources at present. This will likely change in the not too distant future when quantum computers provide access to parallel processing. For the non-technical person, this means essentially the potential equivalent of thousands of computers interactively working with each other to move toward complex systems of solutions; like the human brain.
However, I see a large percentage of high school graduates that are NOT able to deductively consider future potential employment/self-employment opportunities, identify pathways for developing themselves, and then have the determination to teach themselves what they need to know to achieve their goals.
I want to shift the dominance toward humans being able to socially share greater numbers of low-risk significant opportunities with each other. Greater numbers of persons in a group with common sense means more opportunities can be acted upon due to the trust shared by people within a group. This translates to greater national prosperity.
"The great purpose of education is to train the brain to Efficiently teach one's self; to become an expert at anything Passionately pursued." ~JD
James
Ambition is the fuel that drives success.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 01:23 GMT
James,
I greatly enjoyed your essay, and I broadly support your efforts, though I don't know how good a 'common sense' role model I would be. I entirely agree with your assessment about the erosion of the ability for people to think for themselves, and in
my essay, I attribute that to a failure to recognize the value of play as a learning strategy. So teaching common sense could help some but not all of the problems you enumerate.
I think part of the problem is an overall erosion of perceptual acuity as documented in the Tübingen study, published in '99. The number of shades of gray or green perceptible by college students at the end of the study was remarkably less than those at the beginning and participants' acuity was tuned in mostly to loud sounds, bright colors, and so on. So teaching common sense may be more difficult than you imagine.
I remember meeting an engineering consultant named James Dunn once, years ago, and having a meal at a German restaurant in PA, talking about a baffle placed in UV fixtures to prevent interference between the light sources. Was that you? In any case; your essay was enjoyed, and it reminds me of a lecture given by my instructor in Metal Shop - back in High School - which I will always remember. Good luck!
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Ajay Bhatla wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 20:01 GMT
James,
Your essay made common sense a lot more interesting. But it still leaves me asking two questions:
Can common sense really be taught?
If it could be, how relevant might that be to steering to the future?
The issues I have with teaching common sense are:
1. Extremely vague meaning
My American Heritage Dictionary defines common sense as 'Native Good Judgement". Suffice it to say that each of these three words has a mind-boggling set of definitions and practices. Your idea of the social group does, of course, narrow the definition a lot. But then the size, diversity and all sorts of other considerations on the social group need addressing.
2. Very Loose Knowledge Set
Your example, the "trivial application" of the auto mechanic, does support your argument because this application has a defined volume of knowledge - incidentally, that's how humanity defines what is called a trade. Your words "Common sense implies that certain common relationships and related outcomes are predictable, and they are" is right on target for a trade and even the social group does not matter where a trade is concerned. On the other hand, common sense has no tight knowledge set
3. Is any aspect of the future open to being a trade? I think not for one simple reason:
- we understand something because someone has seen it before.
And when no one has seen the future, we have no way to define what we may want to teach.
In summary, How to relate something difficult to define (common sense) to something unknown (the future) is not clear to me from your essay.
I look forward to your comments.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 21:18 GMT
Jonathan,
Play can be an important part of exchanging roles between instructor and receiver. Often I see children showing each other what they believe are better ways of doing things. For children, what are the traits of those who are the best of friends? They are interactive. I will read your essay regarding play, and I am sure I will find something that inspires me.
We may have met. I was supporting Air Force Research Laboratories from 2003 to 2004 regarding robotics projects to clean up unexploded ordinance (UXO). I traveled extensively and was in Pennsylvania. That sounds like the type of conversation I might have with someone. I don't remember the conversation, so it is more likely you met with someone else. James is probably the number one boy's name for anyone named Dunn.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 22:42 GMT
Ajay Bhatla,
Thank you for providing inquisitive feedback.
quote: ...how relevant might that [teaching Common Sense] be to steering to the future?
To grow broad opportunities for Physicists, and to recruit young people to pursue careers in physics:
1) requires a broad capacity to consider and relate logic (mathematics, scientific method, critical thinking...)
2)...
view entire post
Ajay Bhatla,
Thank you for providing inquisitive feedback.
quote: ...how relevant might that [teaching Common Sense] be to steering to the future?
To grow broad opportunities for Physicists, and to recruit young people to pursue careers in physics:
1) requires a broad capacity to consider and relate logic (mathematics, scientific method, critical thinking...)
2) broad business development must take place to support grants and related research (research is the first to get cut in suffering economies)
3) educational programs are currently funded to support Science, Technology, Engineering, Entrepreneurship, and Mathematics (STEEM), so that teaching Common Sense can easily fall within existing programs if a focused effort is made. This means that the efforts cited are implementable, and not just rhetoric.
4) to recruit students to "learn" to enjoy physics requires a system of continuous engagement (see Dr. Nader Vadiee's "Vertical Integration Pathway") so that the concepts of physics are incrementally introduced and relationally manageable. By this I mean, do NOT just introduce students to Black Holes and the Universe as simply emotional awe, that only smart people can think about. To also provide them with social and logical tools to articulate their ideas into a career pathway. The Common Sense tools provide teachers with the tools to share with students to interact with physics even at a very young age.
5) .... don't want to dwell on
quote: Can common sense really be taught?
Yes, but it will take implemented action to verify. Though the bases I believe is strong enough to acquire grants for implementing verification (assessments), the tools need to be firmed up into Educational Materials so they can be distributed to Teachers. Khan Academy is an initial partner being considered.
quote: 1. Extremely vague meaning [regarding dictionaries]
You are very correct in the Dictionary References providing a generalized nature of definitions resulting in multiple logical pathways of interpretation depending upon the context in which it is used.
I intentionally created a lexicon with word definitions that fall within public knowledge, but restricted the definitions and further defined them related to emotional, social, and logical communication processes.
The system of words are set up so their use does not produce contradictions. However, as other experts in sociology, psychology, philosophy ... become directors or otherwise provide works related to grant activities, I am sure the present structure will evolve to be more inclusive of broader considerations. Of significant importance is persons with specific disabilities and children. So child-centered professionals I am sure will produce additional valuable tools.
Self-Esteem is based in the skills needed by particular social groups. This is partly why the 501(c)3 structure was selected. The broad effort by "experts" requires monetary compensation. To develop the tools to teach Common Sense specific to specific social groups needs social group characterization. This requires time and money; and I cannot do everything, I am providing the seed and potting soil to get things going. The 501(c)3 is expected to evolve beyond myself and I will eventually be replaced by systems of diverse professionals.
I encourage any recognized professional to become a member of the UA-KiTS.com Board of Directors; whether or not this essay wins. This essay spawned development, but the teaching of Common Sense will continue regardless.
quote: 2. Very Loose Knowledge Set
I can only put just so much information in an "essay" before it becomes a book. Also, there is a concern about Trade Secrets related to the 501(c)3 and protecting IP in the interest of sustaining growth. Though the examples provided use of many of the relationships presented, the details become dry for use in an essay written for a general audience. Persons who have a keen interest are encouraged to become more involved.
quote: 3. Is any aspect of the future open to being a trade? I think not for one simple reason: - we understand something because someone has seen it before. And when no one has seen the future, we have no way to define what we may want to teach.
Very many of us anticipate the future and through Result Management ensure the Future becomes what we anticipated. Skills in Common Sense are required for good Program and Project Management. As we approach our anticipated results of our efforts, we often find better use of our resources for yet greater returns on our investments. Project Managers often predict the future and create related Statements of Work (SOW). This is how complex projects are built, by predicting the future by management. Competent Management requires useful skills in Common Sense.
Would you say it is easier to predict the future with, or without, applied Common Sense?
Would you rather enter a business initiative with a person who is irrational, or someone who demonstrates reliable use of common sense?
What group of people has a better chance of producing businesses that provide physics related occupations? Those with Common Sense, or those that are irrational.
What group of people will pursue careers in physics more often, those who are irrational or those with common sense?
...
These were trick questions. A person with strong skills in Common Sense at times makes irrational decisions based upon emotional or social pressures, or not carefully considered logic. Consider the Challenger explosion. But a person with well-developed common sense makes these errors less often. We ALL can benefit from stronger skills in applying common sense.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 23:25 GMT
I'm not sure I mentioned this. If this Essay wins, the prize money will be used for startup costs of the Non-Profit for teaching Common Sense
UA-KiTS.com
I, of course, have already invested personal funds, but I did not want to be characterized as a person seeking prize money for personal gain.
Corruption is "unethical allocation". To fight corruption from the bottom/up requires people to have strong skills in common sense. To fight corruption from the top/down requires ethical management of the NSA; again, strong skills in common sense (as I defined) are required.
Helping to eliminate corruption provides greater numbers of high-tech businesses and physics related opportunities.
Common Sense = Self-Esteem (social group based) + Logic + Predicting Consequences
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 23:08 GMT
James,
A large part of the problem with the concept of common sense in today's world is that what might seem logical in one context, might not in another and as soon as you get away from a few core precepts, it just gets fuzzy. Personally I grew up on and continue to live on a family farm, mostly horses and cattle and I do feel I have some common sense. Of course, I also feel I'm stuck in...
view entire post
James,
A large part of the problem with the concept of common sense in today's world is that what might seem logical in one context, might not in another and as soon as you get away from a few core precepts, it just gets fuzzy. Personally I grew up on and continue to live on a family farm, mostly horses and cattle and I do feel I have some common sense. Of course, I also feel I'm stuck in the 19th century, in some aspects of my life.
Now with regards to your essay, it is a piece of writing and a professional writer would have to consider it hopelessly garbled. Common sense for a writer would be to develop some form of compelling narrative arc which draws the reader in and and carries them along. Like a lens, it should gather the required information and focus it on a specific point. Especially in this fast paced world, with many distractions, since common sense for a reader would be to skim over or put down a piece of writing which doesn't seem well organized, or the point of which is obvious.
Having read your responses in this and other entries, your are certainly an otherwise organized and thoughtful person and I can understand being frustrated with the way the world is run, yet sometimes, it isn't due to stupidity, culpability, or criminality. Sometime what seems logical and commonsensical in one context is simply off base in another. For instance, anyone living 500 years ago would consider it common sense the sun is a hot orange orb, moving across the sky and anyone thinking it was really the earth spinning the other direction either had their heads in the clouds, or had been drinking too much wine. A point I've made in some of the
prior contexts, that time is not so much a vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past, seems quite commonsensical to me, but it is also reasonable for others to assume the geometry of spacetime is physically real, because so many well educated people believe it. So put on your common sense cap and decide which fits; Does the present move along a vector from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the world turns? How would common sense resolve that issue? If you agree with me, you find you have gone against not only Einstein and company, but the conceptual basis for the narrative effect on which history and thus civilization is based. To which you might say, of course, I am wrong!
That's the problem with common sense. It is based on our store of knowledge and so what we need to do is inform people as best as possible and let them make best decisions based on that knowledge, but given the amount of information out there.....Some people do find it commonsensical to retreat into a cocoon, such as that created by various political movements. Which is not intelligent.
Regards,
John Merryman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
John,
quote: for instance, anyone living 500 years ago would consider it common sense the sun is a hot orange orb, moving across the sky and anyone thinking it was really the earth spinning the other direction either had their heads in the clouds, or had been drinking too much wine. A point I've made in some of the prior contexts, that time is not so much a vector from past to future, but...
view entire post
John,
quote: for instance, anyone living 500 years ago would consider it common sense the sun is a hot orange orb, moving across the sky and anyone thinking it was really the earth spinning the other direction either had their heads in the clouds, or had been drinking too much wine. A point I've made in some of the prior contexts, that time is not so much a vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past, seems quite commonsensical to me, but it is also reasonable for others to assume the geometry of spacetime is physically real, because so many well educated people believe it.
My definition of Common Sense is:
Common Sense = Self-esteem + Logic + Predicting Consequences
Self-esteem is generated within social groups. In a healthy group Respect is shared between members as they each learn and share useful information. What is useful in one group (Earth as the center of the Universe) does not translate completely to another group (quantum physicists). Though there will be some admiration (emotional) and appreciation (social) depending upon the situations. A physicist and the Earth is the center of the universe person are both certainly able to appreciate art, and the talents each might have. But bitterly disagree upon their perspectives of cosmology.
To "fit" within a social group of quantum physicists requires practiced experience in expressing common emotional, social, and communication processes. The knowledge set changes from one physicist to another; string theory, GR, Gravity Loops, Quantum Causality... To have self-esteem within a group, a member must be able to learn and share information that is "useful" for the related group. Therefore, a foundation of knowledge is required depending upon specific groups. Artists and Politicians may become extremely bored listening to banter concerning Axiom of Choice as it applies to the foundations of mathematics. Artists talking about types of art media might be equally boring to a physicist; not all.
So to develop Common Sense within a social group, depends upon what provides for Self-esteem within a social group so that a member is "useful" to the group.
A farm-hand is well versed in issues of the farm, and was taught the related logical relationships and consequences by their parents, and self-esteem reinforced by practiced experience and social engagement with other farm-hands.
Without Self-esteem relavent to a social group, a person will defer (and reasonably so) to those more experienced in the context of the social group. Arrogance (loathing of others) has no intention of sharing useful information, and often is deceptive to acquire a personal agenda outcome. Arrogant people in a social group are usually political (social/emotional) more than logically useful.
So this is more detail regarding how Common Sense is common to everyone; with self-esteem being relavent to social groups in which we want to become involved.
Teaching Common Sense (as I defined in the related lexicon) can allow for people to transition more smoothly from one social group to another, from one career to another, ... from one perspective to another.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 15:57 GMT
James,
I certainly agree a group sensibility is necessary to function, but what might seem logical on one level, may not from another perspective.
Frequently what is necessary at ground level has to be consolidated the further up the ladder and that seems unworkable. Consider scientists and science writers. Trying to edit what has been painstakingly constructed often seems facile and stupid, but the writer has to translate for a broader audience.
We tend to think top down, but reality builds bottom up and top down is a consolidation process. Which is how our minds work, to distill a perspective from all the information. So even the process of developing a coherent thought introduces bias. Good and bad are not some cosmic dual between righteousness and evil, but the biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. So just as we make decisions by sorting through all the pros and cons, society often has to makes choices which seem negative from different points of view.
So, yes. Within a particular frame, there is a necessary common perspective, but there are multiple frames and when necessary, some prevail over others. Which isn't to say those that prevail are the best long run decision, because often what might seem criminal or stupid is a limited point of view which is simply gathering energy/information into its frame. Then the larger view might then view that frame as unworkable and shed it, or confine it.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 22:28 GMT
Mr. Dunn,
I’ve read your constructive, structured and humanly improving essay. It is challenging to organize basis for assertive humanistic cybernetics or organization. Black Sky Thinking shares with you the focus of reducing or disappearing corruption that seems to be a field of destruction. I admire your dedication to transform in structures and systems into solutions; also I admire...
view entire post
Mr. Dunn,
I’ve read your constructive, structured and humanly improving essay. It is challenging to organize basis for assertive humanistic cybernetics or organization. Black Sky Thinking shares with you the focus of reducing or disappearing corruption that seems to be a field of destruction. I admire your dedication to transform in structures and systems into solutions; also I admire your vision, eagerness and warmheartedly nature of creating fields of self-improvement. We can not avoid to be product of our experience and that is why extending our comprehension of other people’s vision may turn us into more assertive. It is of extreme importance to understand the nature of the creators of the essays because like in your case it is very clear your creation has the deep purpose of extending in a rational way benefits for people to improve their life. Your essay clearly is an expression of yourself and not technological, approved and competitive scientific answer to win a contest; it is transparent your eagerness of real, assertive, applicable and on time solutions for the well-being of human kind.
One of the flows of science has been to reduce human being’s nature to mere technological or scientific assertiveness. If we carefully pay attention to cosmos and what we know about it, life as structured, self-directed and improvable reality it seems to be only here in earth. With this thought comes out the understanding of the value of uniqueness. Admirable is that you as many other people, have experienced negative realities but you turned toward it with a creative, structured and improving reality answer based in the well-being of human kind.
I understand your term “common sense” like a substitute for a “clear, assertive and realistic comprehension of reality ”. I hope to have the right interpretation of your term. In the experience of living abroad in different countries one realizes that “common sense” could have different basis or values that is why by reading all your organization in the essay I dare to interpretate it like “comprehension of reality”.
Black Sky Thinking also understand the deep need of a feedback loop for human kind of their actions this that you express like graduated certification. Labeling people is a very common process in the technocrat society that was of deep help. As we move forward from this technofield toward a new fields of development, we can turn this certification tool into apersonal feedback loop. Most of human beings find difficult to receive a critic or a “no”, we may be very subtle, gentle and careful of making this process. When a certification is not obtained, this could bring out a sense of lackness of value. We may just change the term certification for a feedback loop maybe but the system of making people aware of their actions is an OUGHT TO. I agree with this purpose with you.
Graduated certification for applying Common Sense and BST (Blacks Sky Thinking) value education because it reduces the need of correcting adults and of creating strict systems of control. In deed good education (personal values with knowledge) generate persons with less psychological issues who dedicate themselves into improvement, curiosity, creativity and intellectual interests. For this purpose is also necessary a field that provides opportunities to develop this goals.
I also share the focus of minimizing risks while efficiently and consistently producing systems that efforts toward predictable beneficial outcomes.
Your eagerness of effectiveness can be diminished when expressing other people’s incapability of grasping “common sense”. Let’s better think on systems and fields of improvement and avoid pointing those who “we” could consider that lack of this ability. It is evident by your proposal that a wide range of interests that you have leaded you to provide an integral solution. An integral solution is never easy, expresable in short terms or appreciated. The human brain has to cut information and focus in specific things in order to succeed in the understanding of cosmos, this nature of the brain challenges our vision, focus and creation of systems that turn into complexity.
There is an evident need of creating a radically different economical system, we are not the only ones working on that, look at this:
Biomimicry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE-2rDZwMXA
also this city: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgSLOWrFFFs
Definitely as you kindly and structured expressed that you could include Black Sky Thinking in your projects receive a welcoming of creating a mutual improving relationship to create assertive solutions for human kind.
I appreciate your attention for topics that are fundamental in the search of modifying and improving reality.
Orenda
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 04:19 GMT
James,
Very interesting view on common sense. You seem to consider a lot of implications and ramifications, and even linked to a common sense test! Good luck with the contest!
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 12:15 GMT
Orenda,
I appreciate the feedback.
Graduated Certification is potentially a harsh consideration. Like an IQ test is something most people will not attempt. Many IQ tests are a small aggregate of samples of questions that people with certain backgrounds would be exposed to. So a person that comes from a different background never being exposed to the "key words and tricky phrases"...
view entire post
Orenda,
I appreciate the feedback.
Graduated Certification is potentially a harsh consideration. Like an IQ test is something most people will not attempt. Many IQ tests are a small aggregate of samples of questions that people with certain backgrounds would be exposed to. So a person that comes from a different background never being exposed to the "key words and tricky phrases" will score lower.
Emotional IQ is almost never assessed. Social IQ is almost never assessed. Only communication processes involving logic and memory. IQ tests are fun to take but they tend to be representative toward supporting our present school systems and not the needs of people broadly.
A nurturing mother of 6 children that all have grown to be well-respected in their respective communities will likely have skills in teaching emotional and social relationships that IQ Tests I have seen and taken do NOT at all address.
Art, Humanities, and Creativity in-general are an important part of (using a term I do not like to use without qualification) "IQ". Traditional IQ Tests are completely invalid assessments unless they are qualified as being only applicable to a specific group set based on age, demographics, and educational exposure. People are allowed to think that IQ scores represent something innate within themselves that cannot change. The more a person exposes themselves to the environment from which the IQ test is made, the higher the related testing scores are going to be. So IQ Tests are NOT representative of innate aspects of being human.
Conversely, graduated certification for the teaching of common sense scores a dozen different areas of broad human skills. A socially adept mother will likely score relatively high in related areas; while scoring lower in the logical complexity test areas. A scientist may tend to procrastinate and score lower in areas of social acumen, while obviously scoring well in the logical communication processes. Potentially, there will be people who can come to score 100 (not a percentage) in the related examination. As cited in the instructions, this means the test taker has demonstrated skills that exceed the usefulness of the assessment in those areas.
Other more advanced systems of relationships and perspectives will need to be developed if there is a desire to grow beyond the intentional limits of the assessments. This would be done most likely in areas of Self-Esteem because of a particular skill set that needs to be learned for engaging a particular social group. A scientist that wants to run for a political office for instance. Each dominant political group will have many common features, but there will be a collection of features that need to be practiced to engage effectively with each group; jargon, expressing certain relationships without exposing certain sensitivities...
I agree with you that the word Certification may have a negative social and emotional influence on many people. From my own background a certification is a motivating challenge for which a form of achievement can be derived. But considering life experiences of other people certification could represent another area of potential failure. "Certification" as an excessively-used word may make it difficult for certain people to engage themselves in the system.
For similar reasons "Black Sky Thinking" as 'words' has a similar stigma associated with the broadly perceived ineffectiveness of holistic endeavors.
The word "Study" is a sensitive word for those that are academically burned out; Academic PTSD. :.)
Though not as functionally descriptive, would "Learning to Teach Common Sense" be less imposing? The act of participating in the learning of common sense also engages others and self to learn common sense.
Your concept of wearable technology, what features do you propose? This may integrate well with monitoring for weak considerations in the form of a cell phone application. Something like a simplified interface for interacting with a project management software; i.e. what are some of the risks associated with what I am about to propose? Why is ...... reacting to my present situation by ....
I think we have opportunities for collaboration.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on May. 10, 2014 @ 18:45 GMT
Hi James,
I'm working my way through the essays I promised I would read. My understanding of your essay is that you are suggesting that people in various stages of life and in various professions be given some assessment/self-assessment to see if they are actually competent in their field of study, in their profession, etc. I think this is a great idea and it would improve humanity -- if...
view entire post
Hi James,
I'm working my way through the essays I promised I would read. My understanding of your essay is that you are suggesting that people in various stages of life and in various professions be given some assessment/self-assessment to see if they are actually competent in their field of study, in their profession, etc. I think this is a great idea and it would improve humanity -- if everyone is really competent at what they study/do/work society would obviously benefit.
My main criticism though is one of style in that you are calling this a "common sense" assessment. From what you write I think it would be better to call it an assessment of critical thinking based of logic/data/scientific method. In any case my impression was that this is what you were advocating -- checking if people did their jobs based on a logical/scientific analysis of data. The reason I object to "common sense" and would prefer the other term is that it used to be common sense that the Sun went around the Earth, it used to be common sense that the Earth was flat, it used to be common sense that if you shoot an arrow even in a vacuum it would eventually come to rest since this was its natural state of motion (also it was common sense that you couldn't have a vacuum since Nature abhorred vacua). But I *think* that your meaning of common sense and what I describe above (briefly) as a scientific/logic/data driven approach to things are similar.
Now while I agree that people should be assessed in terms of their competence -- good luck in actually getting them agree to allow you to do this. In my profession (university professor) there is no way professors would agree to such a thing even if it would ensure that they would thus be forced to stay current in the field in which they teach. The ugly fact is that many (but not all) professors decline in quality after tenure (their teaching becomes shoddy and out of date, they cease to publish, apply for grants, go to conferences, etc.). Thus they have a vested interest in *not* being assessed. And I think a similar thing can be said about a lot of professions.
Let me go into this a bit further with an example. In the past several there *has* been an assessment movement at US universities (at least at non-R1, more teaching oriented universities and colleges). The administrators at my university have made a big show that we need to assess the effectiveness of our teaching i.e. are the students learning what we say we are teaching them. This is fantastic idea. However, guess who has to actually do the work of assessment? Yep the professors who are being assessed (actually the assessment usually goes by department so the assessment is of a whole department so this can not be used against a particular faculty member during tenure review. So if you see a problem of the group being assessed making up their own assessment you have come to the same conclusion I did when I mentioned this to the administrators requiring this assessment. My suggestion was that in order for the assessment to mean anything and to be at least semi-objective that the administrators who wanted to assessment should be the ones to carry it out. The one problem with this is that if you do assessment properly it does take a lot of time and this is one thing universities administrators do not want to give -- time and work. Thus they give the assessment work to the faculty being assessed and only and idiot would assess themselves and say they were doing a bad job. In fact some professors are really honest and do a rigorous self-assessment and do find areas they are a bit deficient in. Their reward for this honesty? They are the ones picked on by the administrators to now make a change in what they do (all the time this is taking away from their teaching and research). In the end what they do is lower the standards of their course so the pass rates increase and now they have a "good" assessment.
Anyway I agree and like the idea that *everyone* should be tested periodically to see how they are doing in respect to their profession, but there is a lot of vested interest that would oppose implementing the such testing. But the point is still a good one.
Best,
Doug
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 16:57 GMT
Douglas Alexander,
I appreciate your review.
No, you started from a different perspective of the intents of teaching Common Sense.
The purpose is NOT to measure competence. Competence involves a broad range of techno-centric skills and systems of relationships specific to a position of professional "application". These details are most often learned on the job. Common Sense...
view entire post
Douglas Alexander,
I appreciate your review.
No, you started from a different perspective of the intents of teaching Common Sense.
The purpose is NOT to measure competence. Competence involves a broad range of techno-centric skills and systems of relationships specific to a position of professional "application". These details are most often learned on the job. Common Sense skills provide a better foundation from which to "build" these skill applications.
Common Sense are the primary tools for getting the work done within a social group. An individual person's Common Sense provides the means to acquire respect within a social group. Of the 10 or so areas of competency, each person will likely score high in a few areas and low in other areas. The assessments are not an overall evaluation; assessments are only used to provide study materials to build the weakest areas of Common Sense relative to a social group.
Evaluation scores are based in the application of skills relative to a social group in emotional, social, and logical communication relationships. The evaluations are intended to indicate the "POTENTIAL" to more effectively participate in a particular social group, but does NOT at all reflect competency. The "continuous improvement feedback" between actual results and educational materials provides the only link between materials and competency.
As a Certifying Organization, the intent is to always evolve continuous improvement as social groups evolve.
The purpose IS to measure a MINIMUM, and then GRADUATED levels of skills needed to become part of "a group" that shares respect for one another; useful exchanges of information. Logic and Predicting consequences moderates improvements so that a person can participate in the Group without providing statements that contradict themselves. Stating ones' self to be reliable and then procrastinating or being late is a contradiction.
And these skills of Self-Esteem specific to a group allow a person to more easily become part of different groups of their choosing without having to endure the significantly long processes of "reading the room" and related "trial and error".
Common Sense = Self-Esteem(group) + Logic + Predicting ConsequencesCommon Sense within a group is mutually moderated by Self-Esteem, logic, and predicting consequences.
A physicist in the time of Galileo with Common Sense would have perhaps built a foundation for the Church that God was the center of the universe and not the mythical gods attributed to Earth, Moon, and Sun. So in this way the Church could better deal with the new technologies and related relationships developed.
Common Sense is to make incremental changes in a way that contributes to mutual respect.
You pose an interesting business relationship, as a choice, Graduated Certification can become a requirement by people who want to better understand who they are hiring, and who they are retaining. Those with the capacity to better relate to their social group is a type of performance standard. Those without a minimum competence in applying Common Sense relative to their profession are less sought after for leadership positions. I'll have to add this to the business model.
Regarding School Accreditation and related Self-Assessment:
I'm familiar with the process. The Accreditation Agency tries to simultaneously enforce diversity in education and students graduating with the skills they need for employment.
However, a Trade School teaches skills, while Universities build brains to teach one's self.
"The Great Purpose of higher education is to build the brain to Efficiently teach one's self; to become an expert at anything Passionately pursued." ~James Dunn
There are over 1000 fields of study in Electrical Engineering. The same is true of other disciplines of engineering, business, art, music, politics ... Universities cannot provide certifications in all the different fields in which people become employed.
However, Common Sense is the relational tools that apply to almost everyone related to emotional, social, and logical communication processes.
Understanding HOW-TO develop respect within a social group is valuable for both the individual and the group.
The purpose of UA-KiTS.com is to off-load much of the assessment continuous improvements from the groups needing individuals with strong skills in certain areas. But realize, that many groups need members with "weak" skills in certain areas. Actually certain distributions. An out of work scientist would make a terrible candidate for janitorial position. How long would they be happy in that position. But if Monster.com had a tool to put in the distributions of the individual, they could search for related jobs they may never thought even existed that strongly relate to their persona of Common Sense for the related group.
Students graduating from High School can put in their Common Sense scoring and the most related jobs can come up without having to know the related keywords. The students can then read the skill sets desired and go to a related trade school, University, or community college to acquire the related functional skills.
If they have an interest in a particular field, the Common Sense scores needed in those fields can provide the individual with the areas of self-improvement that they need to develop to enter the related field successfully.
A group of experts in assessment in a particular field can produce an assessment for a fraction of the cost of someone already overburdened with their professional activities. Many groups share similar features that can be used as a beginning template from which to modify and build.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 12:23 GMT
James,
I applaud your intent and aims. I agree that the Georgina, Doug's etc views above are somewhat semantics but there is a good point to consider; Particularly in the UK the very common definition of 'common sense' is; "that which cannot be taught." So, while I understand your perspective, it is none the less valid that although
you clearly know what you mean, and there...
view entire post
James,
I applaud your intent and aims. I agree that the Georgina, Doug's etc views above are somewhat semantics but there is a good point to consider; Particularly in the UK the very common definition of 'common sense' is; "that which cannot be taught." So, while I understand your perspective, it is none the less valid that although
you clearly know what you mean, and there are few other words or terms to describe it, most or at least many people won't understand it in the way you intend.
Perhaps you should consider adding an additional descriptor to distinguish it from it's established usage; perhaps "predictive..." or "intuitive.." or "common sens-ibility" or anything appropriate just to distinguish it.
I must also admit that I feel we may need to go further and deeper in revolutionising human education. Alice and I managed to escape the conveyor belt of mathematics when we noticed it heading into Dodgson's Wonderland. The best thing I then did was study Architecture. The first year is all about re-teaching us how to think. It's a revelation and I recommend it to all. Even Wittgenstein was bowled over seeing it it 2nd hand.
One fundamental is '3 steps forward 2 steps back' as default mode. Testing then reviewing in overview. Organising complex evaluation and comparisons of and against multiple criteria is another, how to use of both lobes of the brain together (the whole is FAR greater than the sum of the parts), and learning how to identify and root out hidden assumptions intuitively. Tracing consequential paths is a critical one most simply don't apply. Thinking outside each box in sequence ('Russian Dolls') is also implicit. How to inspire, the 'scientific method' but with morality, selflessness, the hippocratic oath but not medically..
I could go on. The fact is that could be simplified and packaged into teaching progressively from a young age. I try to show subtly in my essay as a sub plot the potential effects and results of thinking outside the 'Earth-centric reference frame'. An alien concept to most but the next great step on from the Copernican revolution. Rationalisation of the stupidities of QM emerges. Stupidities that will remain all the time we underutilise the vast potential of the quantum computers in our head. I just call it 'learning how to think'.
Perhaps your work is a good and realistic first step. I can't see the teaching profession adopting new thinking that they themselves don't understand any more than physicists will adopt new physics. We must start somewhere, or try at least! I'm reminded of the 'Friends of Wisdom promoting teaching wisdom in universities. Few understand what they mean and they all define it differently. A clear message is task 1. Well done and keep it up. I hope you can read and like my own essay. Do comment or ask questions.
Very best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 16:15 GMT
Peter,
I like your model of incremental broad and ethical assessments during development. This is a common technique used in software engineering. Create a code segment and test its viability. Object-oriented coding. I hadn't thought about more broadly using this principle. I can see potential use in the teaching of common sense related to general problem solving skills. Thank...
view entire post
Peter,
I like your model of incremental broad and ethical assessments during development. This is a common technique used in software engineering. Create a code segment and test its viability. Object-oriented coding. I hadn't thought about more broadly using this principle. I can see potential use in the teaching of common sense related to general problem solving skills. Thank you.
Interesting that the Urban usage of the phrase "Common Sense" in Great Britain is so different to the definition provided by Oxford Dictionary.
"Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters"
However, you are quite right that up until my efforts "common sense" here in the United States was thought only to be taught by good families and hard knocks.
My developments included Ethos (emotional), Pathos (social), and Logos (logical communications) to correlate the types of reasoning with intended outcomes. What is available for public viewing is a small part of the larger model that has evolved since this essay was first written.
Previously, it was thought Common Sense could not be taught, this is the equivalent of a new technology; my original works.
As of this Thursday and Friday I will be teaching my first workshop with the principles of teaching common sense incorporated into the coursework. I'm looking forward to comparing results as compared to the same materials I had previously taught. Additional metrics being monitored are student to student interactions and sustainability of student interactions after the workshop.
"The Common Sense of eCommerce"
Presently I am told to expect 10 to 15 participants and a Foundation staff member.
The Foundation I am incorporating is moving to the next step.
I have written a business model whitepaper to a philanthropic foundation in an attempt to both grow their influence and outreach while supporting the overhead needed by the UA-KiTS.com Foundation.
Regardless of whether or not this essay wins the competition, the resulting effort is going public; as soon as this Thursday.
Assessment will include a short questionnaire both before and after the workshop to capture related metrics to characterize the effectiveness of course materials presented. A follow-up questionnaire will be emailed to participants six months from now to capture their continued use of the materials presented.
Here in the United States, well-recognized is the lack of common sense possessed by a large segment of our population. Also, courses based in Common Sense sound less threatening to non-traditional students.
Everyone believes they are well-prepared with skills of common sense. Yet people procrastinate, become involved with DRAMA (useless emotional interactions with no hope of useful outcomes), sit in front of a television instead of pursuing public social activities with their children ...
Common Sense can only be learned from practiced experience; it cannot be learned from just reading about it. Therefore, my teaching model has changed significantly and I am hoping it will also be much more fun for the participants.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 15:34 GMT
James,
Thanks. I wish your project well. I hoe you also become more ambitious about teaching different ways of thinking, to find and drop assumptions and better analyse complex issues and 2nd and further stage consequence. I hope my essay shows the success of that but it seems to have polarised views (and scores!). It seems most still consider symptoms not fundamental driving cause.
On that matter I'm disappointed yours, which doesn't, hasn't attracted more attention and higher scoring, I'm applying mine now which should help (I hope you'll do the same for mine if you haven't yet).
Very best wishes.
Peter J
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear James,
Your essay in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt lifts very important philosophical problem of "Common Sense". You well prove extreme importance of a subject for modern Humanity and its future. I understand you very well, it is possible because I also the engineer - electrician and perfectly I know that such "safety" and value of human life. You give very interesting ideas which...
view entire post
Dear James,
Your essay in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt lifts very important philosophical problem of "Common Sense". You well prove extreme importance of a subject for modern Humanity and its future. I understand you very well, it is possible because I also the engineer - electrician and perfectly I know that such "safety" and value of human life. You give very interesting ideas which show your deep critical reason and spirit. The "Common Sense" problem is very important today for science and society. Thanks to your essay I went deep into history of philosophy of common sense, in particular into history Scottish "philosophies of common sense".
Relevance of philosophy of common sense is caused also need of the solution of an old problem of justification of knowledge, a demand of epistemological potential of Common Sense in consciousness philosophies, the solution of a scientific problem of consciousness. The Humanity any more isn't able to afford to ignore in a nuclear century basic instructions of the common sense, having system character. In too time a phenomenon of common sense still deeply unreflected
in philosophy. Also it is a big problem. Solutions of a difficult problem of consciousness completely is in harmony with installations (principles) of Common Sense. The modern scientific picture of the world has to include limit meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl), so the primordialny principles of Common Sense. Your essay and your ideas extremely important and on the contest subject.
Excellent appeal for Humanity to action for the maximum overcoming of existential risks and more reliable steering the Future: "Take the Common Sense self-assessment to see for yourself if there are certain areas you might want to better develop. " Yes, Philosophy and Ethics should be introduced widely in the educational process, including the Philosophy of Common Sense. High score.
New Generation tells us: "We start
the path " .
We must find the will for the future of our children and grandchildren!
Hope-our compass earth... Common Sense and Great Common Cause.
I invite you to read and evaluate my
essay .
I wish you good luck!
All the Best,
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Toby Asher Lightheart wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 07:30 GMT
Hi James,
The presentation seemed a bit rough, but you've presented some interesting ideas in this entry. I think assessing common sense is probably a difficult prospect; inattentiveness, inexperience or simply a lack of what is now basic knowledge can be construed as a lack of common sense. I would be interested to see what your course and certification entail.
I was particularly interested in your description of instructors and receivers of information. I've had ideas about delivering education that involves more of a peer-to-peer structure that have some features in common with your discussion their. I'm hopeful that a system of education that places student and teachers on more equal footing would give people greater cause to practice respect and compassion.
Let me know if you'd like further feedback or to discuss any ideas. Thanks again for your comments on my essay entry.
Cheers,
Toby
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 12:21 GMT
What I have tried for the first time in a workshop on teaching introductory eCommerce, is to compare conventional teaching to that of Refereed Debate. Many participants did not have internet access and were artists exploring the potential of marketing their products online. Of the 14 only 5 had somewhat developed skills in working with computers.
I presented the basic materials the first...
view entire post
What I have tried for the first time in a workshop on teaching introductory eCommerce, is to compare conventional teaching to that of Refereed Debate. Many participants did not have internet access and were artists exploring the potential of marketing their products online. Of the 14 only 5 had somewhat developed skills in working with computers.
I presented the basic materials the first day in a traditional class setting with hands-on browser experience, and provided a large variety of information for them to explore after class.
Out of 14 adult participants, only two indicated they had independently explored the material and worked on their website since the last class. The workshops were 3 hours, and a week apart.
The next class I explained a method to explore new concepts more actively; Refereed Debate. I set up myself and two participants in Refereed Debate; similar to a judicial court. I explained the rolls of each and the limitations of what the Referee was allowed to say. The three of us presented as we rotated the position of Referee until all three had a chance to act as Referee. Each person was limited to 5 minutes to express themselves to provide sustainable support for online marketing of a specific piece of artwork that happened to be in the room.
The remainder of the workshop, I divided the class into groups of three. I chose the initial referees based upon their demonstrated skills in using a computer. This ensured a certain amount of distributed computer expertise. I gave everyone the same common goal regarding marketing online.
The Referee is not allowed to guide presentation. The only comments the Referees were allowed to make were if something was said that was not logical, words were used where their meaning was out of context, the connection of relationships to achieve the goal were not logical because of missing information (gaps), or if other relationships that could be related are not being exposed.
The Referee writes down the faulty logic and gaps for each participant presenting, and writes down what is the best information presented.
What happened is that the first day of the workshop, only two participants interacted, everyone else was either quiet or asked a question but did not attempt to help others.
On the second day, the participants were laughing and arguing. I learned I also needed to have a flag to indicate when emotional issues popped up to call me over to work things out.
After 2 rotations of referee, the referee's rotated to new groups and the process repeated.
All the participants recognized each other in a personal way by the end of the class.
This is too early to tell if that was related to Respect, and how that affects learning uptake. But it is encouraging.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Dunn replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 21:11 GMT
Toby,
Yes, I would like feedback and to share ideas.
Teaching Common Sense forumJames
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.