On 10/07/2014 06:47 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 at 08:19:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
But regardless: Yes, there *is* a theoretical side to logic, but logic
is also *extremely* applicable to ordinary everyday life. Even moreso
than math, I would argue.
Yep, however what the human brain is really bad at is reasoning about
probability.
Yea, true. Probability can be surprisingly unintuitive even for people
well-versed in logic.
Ex: A lot of people have trouble understanding that getting "heads" in a
coinflip many times in a row does *not* increase the likelihood of the
next flip being "tails". And there's a very understandable reason why
that's difficult to grasp. I've managed to grok it, but yet even I (try
as I may) just cannot truly grok the monty hall problem. I *can*
reliably come up with the correct answer, but *never* through an actual
mental model of the problem, *only* by very, very carefully thinking
through each step of the problem. And that never changes no matter how
many times I think it through.
That really impressed me about the one student depicted in the "21"
movie (the one based around the real-life people who created card
counting): Don't know how much of it was hollywood artistic license, but
when he demonstrated a crystal-clear *intuitive* understanding of the
monty hall problem - that was *impressive*.
I agree that primary school should cover modus ponens,
modus tollens and how you can define equivalance in terms of two
implications. BUT I think you also need to experiment informally with
probability at the same time and experience how intuition clouds our
thinking. It is important to avoid the fallacies of black/white
reasoning that comes with propositional logic.
Actually, one probably should start with teaching "ad hoc"
object-oriented modelling in primary schools. Turning what humans are
really good at, abstraction, into something structured and visual. That
way you also learn that when you argue a point you are biased, you
always model certain limited projections of the relations that are
present in real world.
Interesting points, I hadn't thought of any of that.
Educational research shows that students can handle theory much better
if it they view it as useful. Students have gone from being very bad at
math, to doing fine when it was applied to something they cared about
(like building something, or predicting the outcome of soccer matches).
Yea, definitely. Self-intimidation has a lot to do with it too. I've
talked to several math teachers who say they've had very good success
teaching algebra to students who struggled with it *just* by replacing
the letter-based variables with empty squares.
People are very good at intimidating themselves into refusing to even
think. It's not just students, it's people in general, heck I've seen
both my parents do it quite a bit: "Nick! Something popped up on my
screen! I don't know what to do!!" "What does it say?" "I dunno! I
didn't read it!! How do I get rid of it?!?" /facepalm
Internalized motivation is really the key to progress in school,
This is something I've always felt needed to be, as mandatory, drilled
into the heads of every educator. Required knowledge for educators, IMO.
Think like "gold stars" are among the worst things you can do. It really
drives the point home that it's all tedium and has no *inherent* value.
Of course, in the classroom, most of it usually *is* tedium with little
inherent value...
which
is why the top-down fixed curriculum approach is underperforming
compared to the enormous potential kids have. They are really good at
learning stuff they find fun (like games).
Yea, and that really proves just how bad the current approach is.
Something I think is an appropriate metaphor for that (and bear with me
on this):
Are you familiar with the sitcom "It's always sunny in Philadelphia"?
Created by a group of young writers/actors who were just getting their
start. After the first season, it had impressed Danny DiVito enough
(apparently he was a fan of the show) that he joined the cast.
In an interview with one of the shows creators (on the Season 1&2 DVDs),
this co-creator talked about how star-struck they were about having
Danny DiVito on board, and how insecure/panicked he was about writing
for DiVito...until he realized: (His words, more or less) "Wait a
minute, this is *Danny DiVito* - If we can't make **him** funny, then we
really suck!"
A school that has trouble teaching kids is like a writer who can't make
Danny DiVito funny. Learning is what kids *do*! How much failure does it
take to mess *that* up?
"Those who make a distinction between education and entertainment don't
know the first thing about either."
Yes, social factors are more important in the real world than optimal
decision making,
I was quite disillusioned when I finally discovered that as an adult.
Intelligence, knowledge and ability don't count for shit 90+% of the
time (in fact, frequently it's a liability - people *expect* group-think
and get very agitated and self-righteous when you don't conform to
group-think). Intelligence/knowledge/ability *should* matter a great
deal, and people *think* they do. But they don't.
unless you build something that can fall apart in a
spectacular way that makes it to the front page of the newspapers. :-)
I've noticed that people refuse to recognize (let alone fix) problems,
even when directly pointed out, until people start dying. And even then
it's kind of a crapshoot as to whether or not anything will actually be
done.
