Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

James Dunn: on 6/6/14 at 21:11pm UTC, wrote Toby, Yes, I would like feedback and to share ideas. Teaching Common...

Peter Jackson: on 6/5/14 at 15:34pm UTC, wrote James, Thanks. I wish your project well. I hoe you also become more...

Anonymous: on 6/5/14 at 12:21pm UTC, wrote What I have tried for the first time in a workshop on teaching introductory...

Toby Lightheart: on 6/4/14 at 7:30am UTC, wrote Hi James, The presentation seemed a bit rough, but you've presented some...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/30/14 at 11:07am UTC, wrote Dear James, Your essay in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt lifts very...

James Hoover: on 5/20/14 at 19:11pm UTC, wrote James, Time is growing short, so I am revisiting and rating. You said in...

James Dunn: on 5/13/14 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote Peter, I like your model of incremental broad and ethical assessments...

Peter Jackson: on 5/13/14 at 12:23pm UTC, wrote James, I applaud your intent and aims. I agree that the Georgina, Doug's...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 14, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Graduated Certification for Applying Common Sense by James Dunn [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Dunn wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 20:29 GMT
Essay Abstract

At 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 Bio

James Dunn is an electrical engineer experienced in electronic hardware design, grant program management, project management, and educational materials development.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 13:30 GMT
Thanks for explaining.Georgina

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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 ;-)

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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



Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 16:54 GMT
Common Sense ermöglicht Physik Karriere Straße.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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 forum

James

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.