MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Great Minds Think Differently (Psychology)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

(I really do think that the dating of posts would be useful, Mr Harper)

This is only one of my original contributions to the (admittedly newish) art of conducting web discussion groups. Against unanimous opposition (including now, yours) I pointed out that on every discussion group you have visited there is a vast amount of excellent material that is never visited nor ever revisited and therefore dies. This is because the posts are dated and people have this thing about currency. It is referred to in THOBR obliquely as The Old Hat Problem as in "No need to bother, it's old hat."

We on the other hand do not do this. Everybody who joins should regard everything as current and if I had had my way, the order of the posts would be periodically re-jigged so nobody would know when they were last accessed but web designers cannot manage such a feat. Those of you who have been here for a bit will know that nothing on this site ever dies. Unless it is solved.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Re the dating of posts
Yes I understand your reasoning but the Old Hat Problem won't go away just by leaving the dates off. If one participates in a tertulia (lovely Spanish word for an informal group that meets for serious intellectual discussion on a range of topics) then out of a reasonable level of respect for one's co-discussants, if such a word exists, one doesn't want to be unnecessarily boring.

So if you are resolute against dates, what about classifying threads into groups like "Hot Topics", "Do feel free to add to these", or "Here for the Historical Record" and so on.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
So if you are resolute against dates, what about classifying threads into groups like "Hot Topics", "Do feel free to add to these", or "Here for the Historical Record" and so on.


They're all hot topics. We have made them so.
Send private message
lyndserae


In: A Spacesuit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I just wanted to let everyone know that there was a dyslexia specialist who turned up at my Zendo about 2 weeks ago. She told me the that "dyslexia" is defined by the problems ordering and understanding in the various parts of a brain that has a higher than average IQ. It's not dyslexia if the person's not over-smarties.

I thought that was interesting because I had never heard it qualified that way. She said that it is considered a neurological abnormality and manifests itself in all kinds of ways - not just reading. Some dyslexics have trouble with understanding verbal language, or have dyscalculia where numbers appear to jumble.

She didn't have any answers for me about if sight may have anything to do with it, but curiously enough she did mention that some people who have the auditory version can be helped to learn verbal language through the assistance of musical training.

It seems to be that you have to look at the whole system of sensory organs to really understand how the brain's "defects" may be playing out.
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
I saw a programme once that showed that musical ability was not innate, but developed only through practice. But it didn't say whether natural flair determines who puts the hours -- and the right effort -- into practising.

This seems like a loaded viewpoint (so to speak). Chomsky has demonstrated - and in fact the history of the human race demonstrates - that language ability, specifically the ability to understand and manipulate grammar, is innate, but Kaspar Hauser and similar cases demonstrate that if no practice is put in, the ability atrophies.

When I was a child, no one ever taught me to sing or even encouraged me: my parents didn't sing or play musical instruments. But I sang anyway, and have always been able to pick up melodies with a certain facility. Later, when singing with other people, I had to learn not to change keys from verse to refrain and other more subtle details.

When I was 9 or 10 several classes went together to see a film in which someone on the screen asked everyone to sing along. I was the only one who did, and of course everybody else looked at me like I was a Martian. But I kept on. From my point of view not singing is completely unnatural.

Before radio and sound recording, singing - not necessarily very good - was more common, or so I believe. What seems certain is that there is a general understanding that if you're not a professional you should keep your mouth musically shut, unless you're a little drunk and there's karaoke on the go. Then it's officially approved.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

lyndserae wrote:
...She told me the that "dyslexia" is defined by the problems ordering and understanding in the various parts of a brain that has a higher than average IQ. It's not dyslexia if the person's not over-smarties.


So an unintelligent person with identical symptoms and it's not dyslexia? Suspicious. Really starting to sound like a middle class "disease".
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chomsky has demonstrated - and in fact the history of the human race demonstrates - that language ability, specifically the ability to understand and manipulate grammar, is innate,


Has he?
Send private message
lyndserae


In: A Spacesuit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

So an unintelligent person with identical symptoms and it's not dyslexia? Suspicious. Really starting to sound like a middle class "disease".


The reasoning was that lots of other kinds of disabilities have similar symptoms whereas in the "smart" kids, it just appears without any other factors.

Incidentally, last night I was out with my friend DL and we were talking about Asperger's which also supposedly also only occurs in above average smarties. He also suggested the likelihood of over-diagnosis because all parents want their kids to be "smart". Strange that you should suggest something similar.

Also last night, my husband said about the nicest thing ever to me,. He said, "You do not have a learning disability. You don't have any disabilities at all- you just have a couple of differences in your brain."
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

lyndserae wrote:
Also last night, my husband said about the nicest thing ever to me,. He said, "You do not have a learning disability. You don't have any disabilities at all - you just have a couple of differences in your brain."


Sheesh.

I've been sayin' that to ya for some time now.

Where's my love-n-appreciation? ;-)
Send private message
lyndserae


In: A Spacesuit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Thank you, Ish. You are indeed, quite a chap!
:)

Grant, Re: Chomsky, can you tell me where that was published? I would like to give it a read, since some of my recent experiences sugggest that language isn't necessarily innate in people.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Geoffrey Sampson maintains that universal grammar theories are not falsifiable and are therefore pseudoscientific theory. He argues that the grammatical "rules" linguists posit are simply post-hoc observations about existing languages, rather than predictions about what is possible in a language, a claim that has been echoed by Henry L. Roediger III in "What Happened to Behaviorism?" [3] Similarly, Jeffrey Elman, argues that the unlearnability of languages assumed by Universal Grammar is based on a too-strict, "worst-case" model of grammar, that is not in keeping with any actual grammar. In keeping with these points, James Hurford argues that the postulate of a language acquisition device (LAD) essentially amounts to the trivial claim that languages are learnt by humans, and thus, that the LAD is less a theory than an explanandum looking for theories. [4]

from Wapedia

I think Chomsky is not really a scientist. He's a religious leader, like Marx and Freud, surrounded by acolytes who worship him.

John Searle is also pretty good at debunking his ideas.
Send private message
lyndserae


In: A Spacesuit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've found some interesting things in Chomsky's work, but I agree, he is a rock star!

So what do you think, Grant? I don't think that language is innate. Six months ago, I might have bought it, but for some reason I've met a lot of severe dyslexics this year and some of them clearly were not hard wired for speech.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

So what do you think, Grant?


I don't know (one of the fundamental principles of AE must be to be willing to say those three words!).

My guess is that very little about language or thinking or even consciousness is innate. If it was innate it wouldn't take so long to learn to speak. And after twenty years of study my French would enable me to do more than just ask for "un croissant et un cafe s'il vous plait."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On the learning of French an interesting experiment was conducted on telly a few years ago. Some teenage boneheads were given special French education (by the originator of the scheme) which involved basically teaching them French as French babies learned French (though this was not mentioned, it was presented as an educational Nouvelle Vague).

The outcome was that the cretins were soon ooh-la-lahing with the best of them and everyone was congratulating each other on an amazing outcome and wondering why the hidebound educational establishment wasn't taking up these revolutionary methods. The reason was completely obvious to any watching Applied Epistemologist: in order to achieve the effect there had to be one teacher to five pupils, that teacher had to be supremely talented and motivated, and everybody had to spend several weeks doing nothing but learning French.

But even so, it might be worth it! As Grant points out, and as I point out in THOBR, there is no apparent point in having a daily lesson in French for five school years in order to produce somebody who can't speak, read, write or understand French. Either scrap the enterprise or decide to devote those resources that permit French to be learned like babies learn it.
Send private message
lyndserae


In: A Spacesuit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Do you also think that dyslexics might be helped by this "baby system" of learning? I'll have to check with my teacher on the specifics, but he mentioned that after he didn't speak or seem to understand words as a toddler, his parents took him to a speech therapist who recommended music lessons. He said that somehow they worked on just the sounds and that helped him with language. He is now in his fifties and not only a Zen priest but a multiple master's degree holder, including one in (gasp) English!
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group