MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
A Question of Race (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:

As for music, maths and chess, could it also be that these topics are like languages? Jews are very good at languages because their peripatetic history has made it essential.


Well GM Ziatadinov thinks that chess is like language...but.....girls outrank boys at language (not maths) also not at chess....
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In athletics, a number of stars have been disqualified for using performance enhancing drugs. These drugs do not improve performance on a particular day, they enable the athlete to train (practice) harder.

Better training= Better performance.

Simple, boring and obvious.

Physical attributes are helpful in some sports eg Height in Basketball

....but it's mostly down to training/practice..
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So why are Jews good at MMC?

Their kids practice alot and they are good at learning.

Gerald Abrahams put this down to Talmudic Arguing.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y#t=18
Send private message
Roger Stone


In: conclusive
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think we have a consensus of sorts: that it's not an evolved feature of specific mental abilities in a particular race group, but rather that the three spheres of endeavour require practice and perseverance bordering the obsessive, preferably starting from an early age whilst neural pathways are being formed; and therefore the pushy Jewish mother cultural pattern is more likely to produce such driven individuals than other cultures. Is that a fair summary, or am I undervaluing the achievements of the Ashkenazim?

It might be expected, though, that modern family life in Japan would be doing the same thing. Perhaps their expectations of what counts as a suitable sphere of excellence, are different.
Send private message Send e-mail
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Japanese of course have Shogi.

One difference to chess is you can "drop" captured pieces back onto the board.

My theory is that this is also a development of Knucklebones.

BTW Roger, AE doesnt really do consensus...unless Mick gives you the all clear.

House rules are that folks agree with you, just to get you going... then challenge you.. just as you start to think you are getting somewhere.

Godspeed.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
House rules are that folks agree with you, just to get you going... then challenge you.. just as you start to think you are getting somewhere.


.. and then they ignore you. A bit like Gandhi's house rules, but in reverse.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:

.. and then they ignore you. A bit like Gandhi's house rules, but in reverse.


I put alot of work in on your posts.......

But for me, its a bit like trying to dash round a gallery in a couple of hours.

I cant keep up.

I just need to sit down in front of one picture. By the time I have made up my mind on the Turner you are off in the Post Impressionists....

I am only just making use of your Reverse Engineering.
Send private message
Roger Stone


In: conclusive
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
AE doesnt really do consensus...unless Mick gives you the all clear.
.


Just testing the water; but thankyou. I am aware of being a newbie, novice, acolyte. If only I could fathom how the quote system works, I might aspire to being a useful nuisance.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just think what I think and you won't go far wrong.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That is truer than you think.
Send private message
Roger Stone


In: conclusive
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Just think what I think and you won't go far wrong.


I remember keenly a lesson from when I was about nine, in primary school. I had got something wrong (common occurrence) and attempted to justify myself by saying "But sir, I thought..." at which Mr Worsefold interrupted me with "You're not here to think, boy, you're here to do as you're told."

I still struggle to justify this as a theory of education, but there is indeed a great deal to be said for it.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There are several things wrong with this post, Roj.

I remember keenly

Try to avoid the hackneyed phrase, it is usually a sign of imprecision in thinking. If you remember something that happened when you were nine it is already 'keenly remembered'. Taking out 'keenly' actually strengthens the sentence.

a lesson from when I was about nine, in primary school. I had got something wrong (common occurrence)

False modesty is always wrong. You don't commonly get things wrong -- nobody does. It is so uncommon in fact that you have remembered it all these years.

and attempted to justify myself by saying

You're not attempting to justify it, you are justifying it.

"But sir, I thought..." at which Mr Worsefold interrupted me with "You're not here to think, boy, you're here to do as you're told."

Good.

I still struggle to justify this as a theory of education, but there is indeed a great deal to be said for it.

Bad. It is the theory of education. Learning from authority is the quickest and securest way of imbibing knowledge. So good is it that this site is dedicated to demonstrating its pitfalls.
Send private message
Roger Stone


In: conclusive
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Beg to differ, sir.

I remember it keenly because it is a painful memory; it cut me. I disliked, and still dislike, being corrected. That is different from simply being able to recall the event. If I use a word, it is there with the meaning I intend it to carry. Whether others take up the meaning is only partly my problem.

It's true I don't get as many things wrong as those I get right, as must be the case with any individual which manages to remain alive much beyond breakfast-time; but I affirm that my errors are legion.

It was an attempt at justification; but it was an inadequate and erroneous attempt. He was right, and I was wrong, and that's probably why it was a painful memory.

As for theories of education - of which there are far too many - I am happy to agree with you (if I have understood you, and the spirit of this site, correctly) that imbibing knowledge without question is common, and is poor education. However, I have been a teacher for many years, and it is my belief that the learning which I have brought about in those entrusted to my care has not often suffered from that deficiency.
Send private message Send e-mail
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Roger, if you have succeeded as a teacher while encouraging your students to question what they are being taught, I warmly and heartily congratulate you.

This little corner of t'interweb, however, is very much for the "awkward sods". Like the kids at school who got labelled as trouble-makers because they kept saying "But sir,..", but were lucky/persistent/thick-skinned enough to reach adulthood with that spirit of adventure and discovery still alive in them. Yes I am talking about mself, I can only guess what the rest of this motley crew were like! ;-)

We're not all Einsteins by any stretch of the imagination. But I refer my honourable colleagues to some famous words of his:

School failed me, and I failed the school. It bored me. The teachers behaved like Feldwebel (sergeants). I wanted to learn what I wanted to know, but they wanted me to learn for the exam...

Then one day this student brought me Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Reading Kant, I began to suspect everything I was taught. I no longer believed in the known God of the Bible, but rather in the mysterious God expressed in nature....

And as man becomes conscious of the stupendous laws that govern the universe in perfect harmony, he begins to realize how small he is. He sees the pettiness of human existence, with its ambitions and intrigues, its 'I am better than thou' creed. This is the beginning of cosmic religion within him; fellowship and human service become his moral code. Without such moral foundations, we are hopelessly doomed....

Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the 'open sesame' of yourself.


Forgive me for quoting only parts, it's worth reading the whole:
https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/how-einstein-saw-the-world/
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I disliked, and still dislike, being corrected.

If you know you suffer from this fault, why not start addressing it?
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