XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration...edison(attrib)



http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm#state
what is the present state of knowledge?
the genetic contribution

1) There are people born without forebrain or with Down’s
syndrome.

2) Un-like twins born into the same family can learn at very
different rates (it would require mental gymnastics of a high order to attribute this to environmental differences.)

3) These differences can be measured after a fashion, with
reasonable consistency, under certain conditions, by various
assemblies of trick ‘questions’ vaguely referred to as IQ tests.

and plenty more


i have worked with people most of my life...
my conclusion is that it takes about 5 years solid work to get
to a state where a person is good enough to work supervised
on a reasonably complex task related to the 5 year study period...
and it takes about 10 years for them to reach a state where
they can go reasonably independent...ie, supervise others


grind research is coming to similar conclusions...
a summary can be found in ch. 2 of gladwell's 'outliers'...
that ch. is headed 'the 10,000 hour rule...

"knowledge of a boy's iq is of little help if you are faced with
a form full of clever boys"



--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 26/05/16 14:48, abelard wrote:

"for anw and others who seem to believe in magical inate abilty"

Magic is for magicians. I believe that such people have
entertaining skills. I don't believe anyone has supernatural
powers. So I have no idea what I have written to lead you to
your description of me above.

[...]

3) These differences can be measured after a fashion, with
reasonable consistency, under certain conditions, by various
assemblies of trick ‘questions’ vaguely referred to as IQ tests.

FWIW, I'm not a great fan of IQ tests, except as [rather
weak] entertainment. They certainly measure something [which is
moderately reproducible], but it bears only a passing resemblance
to what people normally call intelligence.

[...]

my conclusion is that it takes about 5 years solid work to get
to a state where a person is good enough to work supervised
on a reasonably complex task related to the 5 year study period...
and it takes about 10 years for them to reach a state where
they can go reasonably independent...ie, supervise others

Indeed.

The fallacy is the belief, apparent among some posters,
that 5 or 10 years hard work is *all* it takes to become expert
[or (eg) World Champion] in a field.

grind research is coming to similar conclusions...
a summary can be found in ch. 2 of gladwell's 'outliers'...
that ch. is headed 'the 10,000 hour rule...

Gladwell is a very uneven writer, but "Outliers" contains
much of interest. I'm not qualified to comment on its accuracy,
but at least it doesn't jar in the way "Blink" does, and which in
turn is less annoying than Taleb's "The Black Swan".

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:40:04 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

On 26/05/16 14:48, abelard wrote:

"for anw and others who seem to believe in magical inate abilty"

Magic is for magicians. I believe that such people have
entertaining skills. I don't believe anyone has supernatural
powers. So I have no idea what I have written to lead you to
your description of me above.

as a means of detaching you from your pedantry

[...]

3) These differences can be measured after a fashion, with
reasonable consistency, under certain conditions, by various
assemblies of trick ‘questions’ vaguely referred to as IQ tests.

FWIW, I'm not a great fan of IQ tests, except as [rather
weak] entertainment. They certainly measure something [which is
moderately reproducible], but it bears only a passing resemblance
to what people normally call intelligence.

many people define intelligence as 'he agrees with me'....

others don't

[...]

my conclusion is that it takes about 5 years solid work to get
to a state where a person is good enough to work supervised
on a reasonably complex task related to the 5 year study period...
and it takes about 10 years for them to reach a state where
they can go reasonably independent...ie, supervise others

Indeed.

The fallacy is the belief, apparent among some posters,
that 5 or 10 years hard work is *all* it takes to become expert
[or (eg) World Champion] in a field.

what magic ingredient/s do you wish to posit?

grind research is coming to similar conclusions...
a summary can be found in ch. 2 of gladwell's 'outliers'...
that ch. is headed 'the 10,000 hour rule...

Gladwell is a very uneven writer,

whatever sells the product/s

but "Outliers" contains
much of interest. I'm not qualified to comment on its accuracy,
but at least it doesn't jar in the way "Blink" does, and which in
turn is less annoying than Taleb's "The Black Swan".

ok

i've read black swan...i don't remember reading blink so it's
likely that i haven't



--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 26/05/16 19:47, abelard wrote:

So I have no idea what I have written to lead you to
your description of me above.

as a means of detaching you from your pedantry

Well, that's a bit mean. I spent a large part of my career
trying to explain maths in a non-pedantic way.

[...]

many people define intelligence as 'he agrees with me'....
others don't

In that case, I'm an "other".

The fallacy is the belief, apparent among some posters,
that 5 or 10 years hard work is *all* it takes to become expert
[or (eg) World Champion] in a field.

what magic ingredient/s do you wish to posit?

If I knew that, I'd know what profession/activity I might
care to become World Champion in. But I do know that many people
work amazingly hard at things I more-or-less understand, and many
of them never even become adequately competent, and almost all of
the others never become remotely close to the highest levels, to
the extent that *I* know they're not particularly good. If you
choose to call it "inate abilty" [sic], I shall complain only
about the speeling.

i've read black swan...i don't remember reading blink so it's
likely that i haven't

You probably blinked and missed it.

"Black Swan" is a three-page essay rewritten many times
to compose a book. Annoyingly, that sells, as anyone glancing
at it at random finds a three-page essay that looks interesting.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 26/05/2016 19:40, Andy Walker wrote:

Gladwell is a very uneven writer, but "Outliers" contains
much of interest. I'm not qualified to comment on its accuracy,
but at least it doesn't jar in the way "Blink" does, and which in
turn is less annoying than Taleb's "The Black Swan".

Ericsson and Pool recently tried to clear up Gladwell's mistakes.

"Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: Our research was key to the 10,000-hour
rule, but here’s what got oversimplified"

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wrong_our_research_was_key_to_the_10000_hour_rule_but_heres_what_got_oversimplified/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Thu, 26 May 2016 21:50:51 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

On 26/05/16 19:47, abelard wrote:

So I have no idea what I have written to lead you to
your description of me above.

as a means of detaching you from your pedantry

Well, that's a bit mean. I spent a large part of my career
trying to explain maths in a non-pedantic way.

is that because you have a good understanding of maths...
much better than most

[...]

many people define intelligence as 'he agrees with me'....
others don't

In that case, I'm an "other".

The fallacy is the belief, apparent among some posters,
that 5 or 10 years hard work is *all* it takes to become expert
[or (eg) World Champion] in a field.

what magic ingredient/s do you wish to posit?

If I knew that, I'd know what profession/activity I might
care to become World Champion in. But I do know that many people
work amazingly hard at things I more-or-less understand, and many
of them never even become adequately competent, and almost all of
the others never become remotely close to the highest levels, to
the extent that *I* know they're not particularly good.

all true...but surely you are talking about rather crude differences..
with maybe a slice of motivation...

the runt in class 3 is never going to be cassius clay or amin ali or
whatever his name may be...
neither is cassius ever going to race nibali up a mountain on a bike

i know what interests me...i have been driven like a clockwork orange
since i was about 12...i've taken up many things to relieve boredom
...even chess...but each time boredom grabbed me by the throat
the moment i'd got a reasonable understanding of it....

what i do study does interest me, without deteriorating in to ennui
after a few unusually short years...
with this, i'm like a dog with a bone...i just can't let go...or
perhaps it can't let go of me...

i'd suggest much of high achievement is related to that sort of
neurosis...i'm not interested in anything else....
neither was fisher interested in anything but 64 squares...i doubt if
carlsson is much different...

in a competitive world...those who put in most work are likely to
become concert pianists or composers rather than piano
teachers...

i see no magic ingredient anywhere i look...and by polyphemus i've
looked under every stone...and i'm still beavering away...
i was hoping you might help me out...

If you
choose to call it "inate abilty" [sic], I shall complain only
about the speeling.

see what i mean about pedantry

i've read black swan...i don't remember reading blink so it's
likely that i haven't

You probably blinked and missed it.

"Black Swan" is a three-page essay rewritten many times
to compose a book. Annoyingly, that sells, as anyone glancing
at it at random finds a three-page essay that looks interesting.

that's probably fair...but it is a lesson that needs driving in to
human heads, despite the rather dodgy instincts built in by
evolution

maybe it is like meditating on om...


--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Fri, 27 May 2016 08:06:10 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

On 26/05/2016 19:40, Andy Walker wrote:

Gladwell is a very uneven writer, but "Outliers" contains
much of interest. I'm not qualified to comment on its accuracy,
but at least it doesn't jar in the way "Blink" does, and which in
turn is less annoying than Taleb's "The Black Swan".

Ericsson and Pool recently tried to clear up Gladwell's mistakes.

"Malcolm Gladwell got us wrong: Our research was key to the 10,000-hour
rule, but here’s what got oversimplified"

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wrong_our_research_was_key_to_the_10000_hour_rule_but_heres_what_got_oversimplified/

thanx for posting that...i see they have just produced a book :-)

note esp the first para i have cut:-


"Gladwell did get one thing right, and it is worth repeating because
it’s crucial: becoming accomplished in any field in which there is a well-established history of people working to become experts requires
a tremendous amount of effort exerted over many years. It may not
require exactly ten thousand hours, but it will take a lot.

Research has shown this to be true in field after field. It generally
takes about ten years of intense study to become a chess grandmaster.
Authors and poets have usually been writing for more than a decade
before they produce their best work, and it is generally a decade or
more between a scientist’s first publication and his or her most
important publication — and this is in addition to the years of study
before that first published research. A study of musical composers by
the psychologist John R. Hayes found that it takes an average of
twenty years from the time a person starts studying music until he or
she composes a truly excellent piece of music, and it is generally
never less than ten years. Gladwell’s ten-thousand-hour rule captures
this fundamental truth — that in many areas of human endeavor it takes
many, many years of practice to become one of the best in the world —
in a forceful, memorable way, and that’s a good thing."


iow the generality is correct...but you may always pick at the edges

one among many areas i look at was modern art...where i came to the
conclusion that no-one produced anything worth looking at much
before the age of 50! my assumption being that they just haven't
seen/experienced enough before that time...

in the olden days there was a vanity that all the best work in some
areas was produced before the age of 25...and that it was downhill
all the way from there...
then i found people who were still producing interesting stuff into
their 90s...and there are increasing claims that maybe alzheimers
can be warded off by various forms of 'brain games'(study?)




--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 27/05/2016 10:46, abelard wrote:

there are increasing claims that maybe alzheimers
can be warded off by various forms of 'brain games'(study?)

One such claim was made by Lumosity, who were taken to court and made to
cough up 13m dollars for misleading the punters if I recollect.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Fri, 27 May 2016 12:51:08 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

On 27/05/2016 10:46, abelard wrote:

there are increasing claims that maybe alzheimers
can be warded off by various forms of 'brain games'(study?)

One such claim was made by Lumosity, who were taken to court and made to >cough up 13m dollars for misleading the punters if I recollect.

hulk hogan can be proud


--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 27/05/16 00:22, abelard wrote:

[...] I spent a large part of my career
trying to explain maths in a non-pedantic way.

is that because you have a good understanding of maths...
much better than most

No, it's because I somehow got landed every year with
teaching maths for physicists/engineers/arts students.

i know what interests me...i have been driven like a clockwork orange
since i was about 12...i've taken up many things to relieve boredom
...even chess...but each time boredom grabbed me by the throat
the moment i'd got a reasonable understanding of it....

That is a sign of dilettanteism. Many interesting things
reach a stage where further progress requires serious study. You
can either say "OK, done that, time to move on ..." or grit your
teeth and work through the boring stuff in the hope that there are
interesting things the other side of the blockage.

what i do study does interest me, without deteriorating in to ennui
after a few unusually short years...

Yes, there are things like that too. Things where you can
remain an amateur indefinitely. But you are v lucky if you find
that people will pay you to do them.

with this, i'm like a dog with a bone...i just can't let go...or
perhaps it can't let go of me...
i'd suggest much of high achievement is related to that sort of
neurosis...i'm not interested in anything else....
neither was fisher interested in anything but 64 squares...i doubt if
carlsson is much different...

It is certainly true that you can't reach the top in chess
[or golf or playing the violin] without serious and even obsessive
study. But eight hours study and eight hours sleep still leaves
eight hours per day to do other things. Many of the world's top
virtuosi have been polymaths.

in a competitive world...those who put in most work are likely to
become concert pianists or composers rather than piano
teachers...

That seems to be a slur on piano teachers. I know of no
evidence that teachers [of any sort] are innately lazy, or in any
way less than professional. Among those who attempt to become
concert pianists or composers, those who work hardest are likely,
other things being more-or-less equal, likely to rise nearer the
top; but that's a different matter. My only real claim in this
matter is that hard work is not a substitute for ability.

i see no magic ingredient anywhere i look...and by polyphemus i've
looked under every stone...and i'm still beavering away...
i was hoping you might help me out...

OK. There is *no* substitute for ability.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 27/05/16 23:07, abelard wrote:

[...] i've taken up many things to relieve boredom
...even chess...but each time boredom grabbed me by the throat
the moment i'd got a reasonable understanding of it....

That is a sign of dilettanteism.

no it isn't...it's a sign that i knew when to move on to
things more relevant to my central objectives

Yes it is. If you aren't a dilettante, you would move
directly to your "central objectives" and stay there, not keep
moving on to "things more relevant". If you want to paint in
oils, you don't try crayons, then water colours, then pastels,
then sculpture, then origami, then ..., in the hope that one of
them is quite like oil paint.

[...]

Yes, there are things [...] where you can
remain an amateur indefinitely. But you are v lucky if you find
that people will pay you to do them.

i've never had the ambition to get people to pay me for wasting
my time...however much that may have pleased them

If you have the resources to waste your time indefinitely,
that's fine. Many a gentleman lived that way in the past, and
much good science, engineering, ..., emerged. Today, most of us
have to earn a living.

[...]

in a competitive world...those who put in most work are likely to
become concert pianists or composers rather than piano
teachers...

That seems to be a slur on piano teachers.

why? if people want to be piano teachers or even teach maths
to artists and engineers...that is freedom....
i'm all for freedom

But the implication was that those who work less become
teachers rather than composers. Teaching is hard work. Good
teaching is very hard work. FWIW, I didn't particularly want
to teach, even less to teach maths to artists; but the task
was assigned to me, it paid well, and in return I got to spend
my more productive hours being paid well to contemplate surreal
numbers, chess programs and other such-like fun things.

but you do return to your magic...so i repeat the core question...
please define this thing called 'ability'

Why do you think it is "magic"? An ability is just
something someone can do. Some people simply are better than
others. It certainly isn't merely because they work harder
at it. If you want to know more, you'd do better asking a
geneticist than a mathematician.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:44:36 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

On 27/05/16 00:22, abelard wrote:

[...] I spent a large part of my career
trying to explain maths in a non-pedantic way.

is that because you have a good understanding of maths...
much better than most

No, it's because I somehow got landed every year with
teaching maths for physicists/engineers/arts students.

i know what interests me...i have been driven like a clockwork orange
since i was about 12...i've taken up many things to relieve boredom
...even chess...but each time boredom grabbed me by the throat
the moment i'd got a reasonable understanding of it....

That is a sign of dilettanteism.

no it isn't...it's a sign that i knew when to move on to
things more relevant to my central objectives

Many interesting things
reach a stage where further progress requires serious study. You
can either say "OK, done that, time to move on ..." or grit your
teeth and work through the boring stuff in the hope that there are >interesting things the other side of the blockage.

what i do study does interest me, without deteriorating in to ennui
after a few unusually short years...

Yes, there are things like that too. Things where you can
remain an amateur indefinitely. But you are v lucky if you find
that people will pay you to do them.

i've never had the ambition to get people to pay me for wasting
my time...however much that may have pleased them

i'm not paid for going down the gym either...further, i fully
intend to remain an amateur weight lifter...

with this, i'm like a dog with a bone...i just can't let go...or
perhaps it can't let go of me...
i'd suggest much of high achievement is related to that sort of
neurosis...i'm not interested in anything else....
neither was fisher interested in anything but 64 squares...i doubt if
carlsson is much different...

It is certainly true that you can't reach the top in chess
[or golf or playing the violin] without serious and even obsessive
study. But eight hours study and eight hours sleep still leaves
eight hours per day to do other things. Many of the world's top
virtuosi have been polymaths.

in a competitive world...those who put in most work are likely to
become concert pianists or composers rather than piano
teachers...

That seems to be a slur on piano teachers.

why? if people want to be piano teachers or even teach maths
to artists and engineers...that is freedom....
i'm all for freedom

I know of no
evidence that teachers [of any sort] are innately lazy, or in any
way less than professional.

ho ho ho...in the sense of they get money for standing in front
of students...
so do macdonald's staff get money for serving hamburgers...
i see no evidence of any sort that macdonald's staff are lazy...

Among those who attempt to become
concert pianists or composers, those who work hardest are likely,
other things being more-or-less equal, likely to rise nearer the
top; but that's a different matter. My only real claim in this
matter is that hard work is not a substitute for ability.

i can't remember anyone saying that i was so far

but you do return to your magic...so i repeat the core question...
please define this thing called 'ability'

i see no magic ingredient anywhere i look...and by polyphemus i've
looked under every stone...and i'm still beavering away...
i was hoping you might help me out...

OK. There is *no* substitute for ability.

see above




--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Sat, 28 May 2016 00:53:51 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

On 27/05/16 23:07, abelard wrote:

[...] i've taken up many things to relieve boredom
...even chess...but each time boredom grabbed me by the throat
the moment i'd got a reasonable understanding of it....

That is a sign of dilettanteism.

no it isn't...it's a sign that i knew when to move on to
things more relevant to my central objectives

Yes it is. If you aren't a dilettante, you would move
directly to your "central objectives" and stay there, not keep
moving on to "things more relevant". If you want to paint in
oils, you don't try crayons, then water colours, then pastels,
then sculpture, then origami, then ..., in the hope that one of
them is quite like oil paint.

you become amusing...a serious artist isn't interested in oil paints
or crayons...that just method or craft skill/s
a serious artist has an idea in their head which they wish to
actualise in the real world...

they then experiment and teach themselves the trades and skills
necessary to produce that effect...

if one method doesn't work...the move on to another...

[...]

Yes, there are things [...] where you can
remain an amateur indefinitely. But you are v lucky if you find
that people will pay you to do them.

i've never had the ambition to get people to pay me for wasting
my time...however much that may have pleased them

If you have the resources to waste your time indefinitely,
that's fine. Many a gentleman lived that way in the past, and
much good science, engineering, ..., emerged. Today, most of us
have to earn a living.

money is easy in the modern world...what you don't spend, you don't
need to earn
i'm running an experiment on just how little a person can live on...
i therefore know that a person can live easily on about £200-
£250 a month as long as you have the capital of a place to
live and functioning vehicle...

the rest just accumulates in this world of constant inflation

not one thing has discommoded me in 5 months so far....my
objective is 1 year...i had to pay out 300 euros on the car
yesterday(well, i didn't have to, but something was annoying
me)
i haven't had to stint on books or food during that time...yet
every day i see people on the eternal moan...about this
sort of level being 'poverty'

i expect to know my job...therefore i test it in the real world.

thus i know you are selling snake oil...it isn't a theory or an
empty boast

[...]

in a competitive world...those who put in most work are likely to
become concert pianists or composers rather than piano
teachers...

That seems to be a slur on piano teachers.

why? if people want to be piano teachers or even teach maths
to artists and engineers...that is freedom....
i'm all for freedom

But the implication was that those who work less become
teachers rather than composers.

those who work less at the piano...not those who work less

they may work far harder at understanding the problems of
pupils...
they may prefer to go on a cruise

Teaching is hard work. Good
teaching is very hard work.

who is arguing with that?

so is working on a building site...and you don't get months
of holidays

though i've met teachers who keep taking days off sick because
the 'stress is too much for them'
i've met teachers who roll into a classroom....'turn to page 20
and do the examples there'
then they put their feet up and read the times...

i've met oceans of teachers who can't teach to any level i would
regard as even reasonable...
and much else for which i wouldn't pay them...
they all still get paid...

the standard are so bad(though there is glacially slow improvement)
that i have paid out hundreds of thousands for education where
i was not faced with the government cartel hobson's choice....
i've even sacked some of those because they believed that it wasn't
their job to provide the service i(or the client/pupil) wanted...

when someone doesn't produce...i walk...or i make them walk...

teaching is about providing a service...just as it is in macdonalds...
if the person isn't learning what is useful *to them*...the teacher
if not worth paying...
i've walked off several courses once i found the teacher/s didn't
know what they were on about...or i could learn more in the
libraries or by doing the job myself....

large numbers of the young bunk off school because the teachers
are nbg...they are bored...
those people are not wasters...just the reverse...they are refusing
to waste their time with incompetent baby sitters...

FWIW, I didn't particularly want
to teach, even less to teach maths to artists; but the task
was assigned to me, it paid well, and in return I got to spend
my more productive hours being paid well to contemplate surreal
numbers, chess programs and other such-like fun things.

everyone makes their choices....

but you do return to your magic...so i repeat the core question...
please define this thing called 'ability'

Why do you think it is "magic"? An ability is just
something someone can do. Some people simply are better than
others. It certainly isn't merely because they work harder
at it. If you want to know more, you'd do better asking a
geneticist than a mathematician.

i was asking you...

your definition is a tautology...

'people who do well have ability'

what is ability i ask you...

ability is people who do well you tell me....

your definition is magical 'thinking'

as long as you have basic intelligence...as most people do...
it becomes a matter of work and motivation....

for you, money is what 'we' call a conditioned reinforcer....
whereas i don't care much about money...i'm driven by
curiosity...
i have spent decades studying money....it is to me a form
of human communication...not a means to getting a bigger
or 'better' motor car...or a larger screen....
but i have a car that suits me just fine and like the biggest
screen in the village....

i'm very content with enough money to buy my books or to
go off to a lecture that happens to interest me...or to
study chess at chess congresses until i understand it
sufficiently for my real purposes...or to work in classrooms
until i have squeezed that dry...or to work as a programmer
for the same objective or to go talk with a range of politicians
and join their parties while i examine their behaviour...or
to talk with shop girls and road sweepers....
as i seek to understand human behaviour...because that is what
really interests me....

i once came across an american approach to interviewing potential
workers...

worker...'i have 10 year's experience'
employer...'do you mean you have 10 year's experience...or do
you mean you have one year's experience 10 times'

that is a useful approach...i've often used it...


most people want 'security'...i want to understand/know....

that is why most people are employees....



--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:48:22 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

On 28/05/2016 11:27, abelard wrote:

what is ability i ask you...

In any group of children of a similar age, some will be able to grasp a
new idea/process more quickly than others, then provide correct answers
to certain questions.

One might explain that by motivation. Or their parents feed them
vegetables. Or they learned something similar before. Or they have magic >called ability.

all that looks very reasonable

i'd add....or have prior step to stand upon....

When you ask "what is ability", what do you mean by "is"?

my meaning in that context was....please give a causal description
which does not involve tautology...



--
www.abelard.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 28/05/2016 11:27, abelard wrote:

what is ability i ask you...

In any group of children of a similar age, some will be able to grasp a
new idea/process more quickly than others, then provide correct answers
to certain questions.

One might explain that by motivation. Or their parents feed them
vegetables. Or they learned something similar before. Or they have magic
called ability.

When you ask "what is ability", what do you mean by "is"?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.games.board, uk.politics.misc

On 28/05/16 11:27, abelard wrote:
[...]

you become amusing...

Always happy to oblige.

a serious artist isn't interested in oil paints
or crayons...that just method or craft skill/s

Clearly analogies are over the head in Abelard-world.

[...]

i've never had the ambition to get people to pay me for wasting
my time...however much that may have pleased them

If you have the resources to waste your time indefinitely,
that's fine. Many a gentleman lived that way in the past, and
much good science, engineering, ..., emerged. Today, most of us
have to earn a living.

money is easy in the modern world...what you don't spend, you don't
need to earn

How much you need to earn is another matter. But very few
of us can manage on what we are given by an indulgent family.

i'm running an experiment on just how little a person can live on...
i therefore know that a person can live easily on about £200-
£250 a month as long as you have the capital of a place to
live and functioning vehicle...

That's rather a long "as long as"! "Place to live" =>
either significant rent or a mortgage or previous substantial
income. In the UK, to live in decent comfort probably implies
some £400pcm rent, plus council tax plus insurance; call it
£6Kpa. Add your £3Kpa per person, £3Kpa to own and run the car,
plus more insurance. Total for husband, wife and 2.2 children:
some £22Kpa -- not that far short of average household income.
Also, incidentally, not far off the usual figure I have been
using over the years as an estimate of CI.

[...]

in a competitive world...those who put in most work are likely to
become concert pianists or composers rather than piano
teachers...

That seems to be a slur on piano teachers.

why? if people want to be piano teachers or even teach maths
to artists and engineers...that is freedom....
i'm all for freedom

But the implication was that those who work less become
teachers rather than composers.

those who work less at the piano...not those who work less

OK, but that's a new addition. ...

they may work far harder at understanding the problems of
pupils...

... So now what you're claiming is that those who work
at piano [alone] become pianists, while those who work at (piano
plus teaching) become piano teachers. That is no doubt true,
but I'm not convinced that it's interesting.

they may prefer to go on a cruise

Teaching is hard work. Good
teaching is very hard work.

who is arguing with that?

You seemed to be; but you are reprieved in light of the
new addition.

[...]

though i've met teachers who keep taking days off sick because
the 'stress is too much for them'
i've met teachers who roll into a classroom....'turn to page 20
and do the examples there'
then they put their feet up and read the times...
i've met oceans of teachers who can't teach to any level i would
regard as even reasonable...
and much else for which i wouldn't pay them...
they all still get paid...

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. If you want decent maths teachers
in decent numbers, then their salaries need to compete with those of accountants and computer programmers. Otherwise, you will get a
handful of altruistic "born teachers", a decent number of vaguely
numerate people who aren't bad, and, esp in primary schools, an
army of innumerates drafted in to make up the numbers. FTAOD,
that is not a claim that accountants [etc] would make good maths
teachers. But it is beyond doubt that innumerate people make bad
maths teachers; a serious problem, esp in primary schools.

[...]

teaching is about providing a service...just as it is in macdonalds...
if the person isn't learning what is useful *to them*...the teacher
if not worth paying... [...]

I have long advocated that schools should be more like
shops. They should be open during all sensible hours through
the year, and children should be required to "purchase" enough
education at them to pass their exams. Boring schools would
close through lack of customers, just as shops do. The rest
would have to up their game.

To see the difference, you just have to imagine what
shops would be like if they were run like schools. You would
be told what shop to attend, given specific hours for each type
of purchase, made to go to a specific counter, where 30+
customers would have to buy apples, pairs of socks or whatever
in whatever style that shop-assistant provided. If you didn't
conform, you would be punished by the store manager.

but you do return to your magic...so i repeat the core question...
please define this thing called 'ability'

Why do you think it is "magic"? An ability is just
something someone can do. Some people simply are better than
others. It certainly isn't merely because they work harder
at it. If you want to know more, you'd do better asking a
geneticist than a mathematician.

i was asking you...

Feel free. But it would be more sensible to ask a
geneticist. You probably know as much as I do about the
subject.

your definition is a tautology...
'people who do well have ability'
what is ability i ask you...
ability is people who do well you tell me....
your definition is magical 'thinking'

Tautologies, and recursion and induction, are useful tools
in maths. Despite what sixth-formers are often told, it is not
always necessary to have a "base case"; quite large parts of
maths can be held up by its own bootstraps. I'm not convinced
that the rest of science [== knowledge] is not equally largely
[and literally] a confidence trick.

as long as you have basic intelligence...as most people do...
it becomes a matter of work and motivation....

Not true in the case of maths. While most people with
basic intelligence [whatever that means] can cope with maths
up to GCSE level, by no means all can cope with A-level, and
there are many who could not cope with university maths no
matter how much work and motivation they put in. It is not
even unusual for those *doing* university maths to be unable
to cope, despite work and motivation. FWIW, there are also
many who think they could not cope who in fact just need a
nudge in the right direction.

for you, money is what 'we' call a conditioned reinforcer....
whereas i don't care much about money...i'm driven by
curiosity...

Whoa! You aren't the only person here driven largely
by curiosity. If I had been motivated primarily by money,
I would not have chosen academe as a career. I could easily
have doubled my income in the early days of computing.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)