Wouldn't it be cool to have one device that's common to all and through which everything can be done? The electronic's geeks are racing toward that one still. In many ways, the integrated circuit has already accomplished this goal. But what if you had a tool that helped your own brain function better?
What if you don't have to have a real estate device of a separate kind, you don't have to have an automotive device of a separate kind, you don't have have an exegetical device of a separate kind, and you don't have to have a [you put in your favorite] of a separate kind?
You don't have to have a linguistic device of a separate kind, you don't have to have contagious marketing of a separate kind, you don't have to have church planters devices of a separate kind, and you don't have to have purpose sketches of a separate kind? What if instead you have the greatest tool for your mind which brings both the common and the technical together, so that it becomes one as in an integrated device?
I think that should be popular. That is what I have designed for the mind. You can read about it more detail by scanning my other posts. Take care of your mind. It is a terrible thing to waste.
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/5/2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
Communication Basics: Use Your Voice
I have some really simply advice in the area of communication today. It is this: "Use your words, not your silence or your violence". There are a lot of people who can use that simple advice in communication.
There are many sounds in this world. Use the voice one. Here are some of them:
the sound of silence,
the sound of voice,
the sound of music, and
the sound of violence
Many people don't use their voice, because they are frustrated at their inability to use it. Then find a coach and learn to use it. Please take care to use your voice!
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/15/2014
There are many sounds in this world. Use the voice one. Here are some of them:
the sound of silence,
the sound of voice,
the sound of music, and
the sound of violence
Many people don't use their voice, because they are frustrated at their inability to use it. Then find a coach and learn to use it. Please take care to use your voice!
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/15/2014
Communication Basics: The Blind leading the Blind
The issues right now following my discussion with a fellow minister is that we've got the blind leading the blind. People are not seeing. People are associating emotions with relationships and not with all things and the nervous system as a whole.
They are also not seeing that what is foundational is only on a psychology 105 level and an eighth grader ought to be able to understand. That bottom level is what I am trying to provide and strengthen rather than trying to strengthen the top of the pyramid of learning.
The bottom line problem still remains a problem of seeing or rather a problem of not seeing. Good teachers help people see. Bad teachers conceal what should be visible. If you read my other posts you will see the basic 5 emotions, the basic 5 logics, and the 5 altogether combinations from the first two.
Keep searching and studying till you have those 15 down. When you do you will be smarter than a PhD. By the way, I still regard the goal of PhD education highly. They should have the opportunity to lead. But if they are blind about the basics, how can they lead?
My only criticism of the PhD level isthat many of them are not getting a foundationally strong first-rate basic education before they reach that level. Be smart and seeing and then you will take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
They are also not seeing that what is foundational is only on a psychology 105 level and an eighth grader ought to be able to understand. That bottom level is what I am trying to provide and strengthen rather than trying to strengthen the top of the pyramid of learning.
The bottom line problem still remains a problem of seeing or rather a problem of not seeing. Good teachers help people see. Bad teachers conceal what should be visible. If you read my other posts you will see the basic 5 emotions, the basic 5 logics, and the 5 altogether combinations from the first two.
Keep searching and studying till you have those 15 down. When you do you will be smarter than a PhD. By the way, I still regard the goal of PhD education highly. They should have the opportunity to lead. But if they are blind about the basics, how can they lead?
My only criticism of the PhD level isthat many of them are not getting a foundationally strong first-rate basic education before they reach that level. Be smart and seeing and then you will take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Making it Silly Proof
There was a saying when I was in school that a teacher or a coach needed to make things "moron-proof". This type of language doesn't pass the grade any longer. But I do think that it is important to make things "silly proof". We should simplify things (not too far to the point of being naive) in most cases down to a level where silly mistakes can be avoided.
You can have a PhD from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford and still fail the silly proof test If I were to ask you right now the big five kinds of categories and the big five emotions, you would likely fail the test. [Take a moment and write them down]. If you look elsewhere into this blog you will find all ten. What was your score out of 10? Unless you cheated, I know you did not score well. That goes for those with PhDs.
This is purely silly. Shouldn't every speaker of English know the basic 5 of each and possess the ability to add the next five as well. But we don't.
We continue to practice education that is not silly proof. We tolerate silly answers to silly questions. My question is not silly. I am asking you, "What are your basics in intelligence?" What is silly is that you can go through 5 levels of education (each about 4 years long) and so put in nearly 20 years of school education and still make silly intellectual errors.
Let's start producing silly-proof intellects in the United States at least and watch the silly mistakes melt before the mind's ability to do its job.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. The Dummy and Idiot series of books proves my point, if nothing else does. They are insulting titles that people still need at the PhD level. That's silly.
first noted probably around April 2014
You can have a PhD from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford and still fail the silly proof test If I were to ask you right now the big five kinds of categories and the big five emotions, you would likely fail the test. [Take a moment and write them down]. If you look elsewhere into this blog you will find all ten. What was your score out of 10? Unless you cheated, I know you did not score well. That goes for those with PhDs.
This is purely silly. Shouldn't every speaker of English know the basic 5 of each and possess the ability to add the next five as well. But we don't.
We continue to practice education that is not silly proof. We tolerate silly answers to silly questions. My question is not silly. I am asking you, "What are your basics in intelligence?" What is silly is that you can go through 5 levels of education (each about 4 years long) and so put in nearly 20 years of school education and still make silly intellectual errors.
Let's start producing silly-proof intellects in the United States at least and watch the silly mistakes melt before the mind's ability to do its job.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. The Dummy and Idiot series of books proves my point, if nothing else does. They are insulting titles that people still need at the PhD level. That's silly.
first noted probably around April 2014
Communication Basics: The Greatest and the Least in the Kingdom of Words
To be the greatest in the kingdom of words, you have to be the least in the kingdom of words. This unfortunately is often overlooked. Teachers don't have their students study hardest the most frequent words in vocabulary, but rather fall into the trap of thinking that expanding their students's vocabulary is the most in the kingdom of words.
A bell curve pattern should teach us otherwise. The greater numbers of people fall into the middle of a bell curve, when ranking intelligence. So why would it not also true that the strength of this group is also in the highest frequency words? Why are we instead focused on the fringes of people and vocabulary?
I have studied a number of word frequency lists including those of Hebrew and Greek on top of English. The top 25 most frequent words in these languages pretty much include the top 10 words I am looking for as a common sense foundation.
Greatness is also seen in the example of the history of computers. The zenith of computers was not when it was aboard the Apollo 11 so much as when it was made available to everyone. That is the genius of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Apple Computer founders) and Bob Noyce (he was a founder of Intel). Both had visions of the the frequent uses of their technology, not the narrower use by specialists as their primary goal.
If we are going to teach students vocabulary, I think it is best to start from the most frequent words and celebrate the common sense of many students rather than put so much emphasis on spelling bee champions and the like, who are masters not of the greatest words, but of the least words. Least hear starting from the least frequent. Take care of your teaching and your vocabulary that you make it greater. .
Sincerely,
Jon
Originially noted: 4/17/14
A bell curve pattern should teach us otherwise. The greater numbers of people fall into the middle of a bell curve, when ranking intelligence. So why would it not also true that the strength of this group is also in the highest frequency words? Why are we instead focused on the fringes of people and vocabulary?
I have studied a number of word frequency lists including those of Hebrew and Greek on top of English. The top 25 most frequent words in these languages pretty much include the top 10 words I am looking for as a common sense foundation.
Greatness is also seen in the example of the history of computers. The zenith of computers was not when it was aboard the Apollo 11 so much as when it was made available to everyone. That is the genius of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Apple Computer founders) and Bob Noyce (he was a founder of Intel). Both had visions of the the frequent uses of their technology, not the narrower use by specialists as their primary goal.
If we are going to teach students vocabulary, I think it is best to start from the most frequent words and celebrate the common sense of many students rather than put so much emphasis on spelling bee champions and the like, who are masters not of the greatest words, but of the least words. Least hear starting from the least frequent. Take care of your teaching and your vocabulary that you make it greater. .
Sincerely,
Jon
Originially noted: 4/17/14
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Communication basics: Classical Rhetoric and the Cutting Edge Logic of Computers
Quintilian, a Roman rhetorician, organized rhetoric into its classical five parts. Later rhetoricians like Campbell tried to also organize words into similar categories like those of the larger aspects of a public address. Some have speculated that this is the source for the semantic domains of Eugene A. Nida called TEAR. But I rather think that his semantic domains may have risen out of the success of computers and their technical language.
Computers and their wild success are based on approximately 6 major themes, logics, or categories. Computers are critical to understanding both the logic and the history behind my ARWAT approach to basic communication. Nida could have derived his four categories from the language of computers.
He chose to speak of four primary semantic domains (as seen in the acronym TEAR):
Things
Events
Relations
Attributes
Things of course is not really much of a clue either way, but events, relations, and attributes all have the ring of computer relations or basic categories. If you were to read the technical discussions in the computer field on relations, you would see some of this language.
It is no big stretch to expand Nida's TEAR to include the relations between parts and wholes. And in the recent articles dealing with object-related relations in a computer context, there is some evidence that the sixth category could fit into one of the other five. This is no place for that technical discussion.
Let it suffice to say that the language of computers with its six categories and the language of rhetoric with its five categories show a great deal of overlap. While rhetoric speaks more to the macro level and computer language more to a micro level there is no reason not to see the parallels between them.
In any case, a pretty good case can be made for Nida's TEAR idea whether you argue for a classical origin in rhetoric or a cutting edge origin in computers. I favor the latter, but I think there is further support from classical rhetoric that is helpful as well..
I think lending further support to their method is the core course labels of undergraduate level linguistics classes while I was a student at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN). They were:
Continuity and change (this I believe parallels "Attributes", ex. old or new, etc.)
Bond and Barrier (this I believe parallels "Relations", ex. connected or disconnected, etc.)
Models and Theories (wholes - not listed by Nida, ex. these are each comprehensive competing options)
Rule and Freedom (this I believe parallels "Events", ex. the rules and freedoms in the game of Monopoly)
Sense and Nonsense (this I believe parallels "Things", ex. a thing is something you can sense, nothing is not the same thing, etc.)
So perhaps Nida's idea of semantic domains, which I consider his best idea, may have the most lasting legacy because of its ties to computers and to the classics. This blend would be a sales marketers dream.
Sincerely,
Jon
Computers and their wild success are based on approximately 6 major themes, logics, or categories. Computers are critical to understanding both the logic and the history behind my ARWAT approach to basic communication. Nida could have derived his four categories from the language of computers.
He chose to speak of four primary semantic domains (as seen in the acronym TEAR):
Things
Events
Relations
Attributes
Things of course is not really much of a clue either way, but events, relations, and attributes all have the ring of computer relations or basic categories. If you were to read the technical discussions in the computer field on relations, you would see some of this language.
It is no big stretch to expand Nida's TEAR to include the relations between parts and wholes. And in the recent articles dealing with object-related relations in a computer context, there is some evidence that the sixth category could fit into one of the other five. This is no place for that technical discussion.
Let it suffice to say that the language of computers with its six categories and the language of rhetoric with its five categories show a great deal of overlap. While rhetoric speaks more to the macro level and computer language more to a micro level there is no reason not to see the parallels between them.
In any case, a pretty good case can be made for Nida's TEAR idea whether you argue for a classical origin in rhetoric or a cutting edge origin in computers. I favor the latter, but I think there is further support from classical rhetoric that is helpful as well..
I think lending further support to their method is the core course labels of undergraduate level linguistics classes while I was a student at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN). They were:
Continuity and change (this I believe parallels "Attributes", ex. old or new, etc.)
Bond and Barrier (this I believe parallels "Relations", ex. connected or disconnected, etc.)
Models and Theories (wholes - not listed by Nida, ex. these are each comprehensive competing options)
Rule and Freedom (this I believe parallels "Events", ex. the rules and freedoms in the game of Monopoly)
Sense and Nonsense (this I believe parallels "Things", ex. a thing is something you can sense, nothing is not the same thing, etc.)
So perhaps Nida's idea of semantic domains, which I consider his best idea, may have the most lasting legacy because of its ties to computers and to the classics. This blend would be a sales marketers dream.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Emotions as an Important Part of the Mind, not Primarily the Soul
You may say this to yourself as a reader of this blog. You, the writer, have started writing about emotions in your communication material lately. You're not a psychologist, so why should I listen to you on the topic of emotions?
I really appreciate you asking. You are breaking the silence, so now we can move forward. There is a number of great reasons. But silence on your question does not speak, words do. So let me answer your great question.
The first reason to listen to me is that I have been simplifying difficult things for younger students for years. My favorite school age to teach is junior highers. At that level, you had better have the ability to simplify 500 level course work down to 100 level course work. Over the years, I have simplified a lot of things that were given to me in a complex package. Emotions and logic are just one more.
My favorite example (if you read my other posts) is changing a complex computer language laden method of TEAR into ARWAT with the simple language of any adult - 13 years old and up. Elsewhere, I simplify this laboratory curiosity and foreign field tool into a powerhouse for everyday language use. Check out some of my other posts, if you want to see how I do this.
The second reason is because I respect the higher levels of learning and only desire to take the high level learning and make it useful to the average Joe or Jill. I'm acting in the function of a collaborator with what is already written by psychologists. I am NOT expert enough to enter into the grand debate on emotions at the 500 level, but I am smart enough to discern the basics from experts on a 100 level. It pays to know who knows at the highest levels. By-passing their research is a cardinal mistake.
My favorite examples of highly recognized psychologists who deal directly with the emotions are: Daniel Goleman, Robert Plutchik, Richard S. Lazarus, and Paul Ekman. Goleman wrote the most ground breaking book as far as the public is concerned in his book, Emotional Intelligence. I just think we should take what these guys have learned and use it in the classroom, etc. and not only in the therapist's office.
The third reason is that I am a teacher. As a teacher, I feel the primary part of my job is to deal with a mind and therefore with the brain of my students. I have read up in the area of brain science and find Goldman's work to be particularly convincing that the emotions respond before the logic does in the human brain. My view is we need to catch up to the latest in brain science. The other part of brain science is that emotions were at one time associated with social health. That is why the emotions were primarily assigned to psychologists over teachers. That view is now daily being proven to be unfounded. It is not so much a part of the psyche, the soul, or social health as it is part of mental health and the entire nervous system. I find that to be also the lesson of the latest biological advances. So teachers need to deal with emotions before logic.
I have tons of examples to share here. But I am just going to say that in many instances when I as a coach, a teacher, or a minister first addressed the emotions and then the logic, the results were much better than any other options. Logic alone or logic first only works in certain cases, but not on a routine basis. My greatest moments as a coach, teacher, or minister included both together and in that order. My favorite example from the bible is "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom" in contrast to the fictional character Spock in Star Trek who says that "logic is the beginning of wisdom".
The fourth reason and not the least is that while I'm speaking about mental health, I think we have to remove a major stigma associated with this topic. The problem for psychology is their association with abnormal psychology more than normal psychology. There is a stigma that many people would not to go to a counselor to get help, because of their unfortunate associations. The other thing too is that it still is associated with having a social problem, assuming then that there is some breakdown in a person's family upbringing. These associations may be unfair, but they are not going away soon. I was told by a member of one of the minority groups that in those populations the stigma is far worse.
The advantage I have as a coach, a teacher or a minister is that the stigma is not there to the same degree. It is normal to need a coach, it is normal to need a teacher, and it is normal to need a minister's counsel at least now and then. Psychologists, again maybe unfairly, are associated with higher level problems and many people don't like the social stigma that goes with it. Suicidal people, for example, would much rather talk to a friend than to a therapist, though the friend may be totally unequipped for such a deep topic or a topic that deals with the emotions of the nervous system. They may be unable to really help, but at least it is considered within the norm.
Finally, I think associating emotions with the brain is the big breakthrough of psychology as a science, so I think professional teachers need to "buy back" this part of teaching. There was a fairly famous teacher of a fairly famous leader who did not agree with the negative views of emotion that were passed down to him. I am speaking here of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Why can't teachers teach emotions as related to the mind and the logic of differing kinds that are associated with the mind and brain? I don't see any reason not except that they might feel they are outside their area of specialization. That has to change.
As a coach, I was always dealing with emotions. I grew up in a tradition in sports that took a more positive rather than negative view of emotions. I think the real issue is to re-establish the positive regard for emotions rather than a primarily negative one. This is not the first time in history that negative regard held a society back from its promise. Let's break open a new area of promise with teachers who want to tackle emotions and psychologists who agree their handling it alone is overwhelming their system of treatment and help.
So that is why I think I as a coach, a teacher, and a minister can say something about emotions without being a full-blown psychologist. I think it is central to all three and it has to be applied at a younger age level than when people are already in serious trouble. I hope this encourages especially teachers to take back their responsibility. Let's get this done. Our schools need great teachers again.
Sincerely,
Jon
I really appreciate you asking. You are breaking the silence, so now we can move forward. There is a number of great reasons. But silence on your question does not speak, words do. So let me answer your great question.
The first reason to listen to me is that I have been simplifying difficult things for younger students for years. My favorite school age to teach is junior highers. At that level, you had better have the ability to simplify 500 level course work down to 100 level course work. Over the years, I have simplified a lot of things that were given to me in a complex package. Emotions and logic are just one more.
My favorite example (if you read my other posts) is changing a complex computer language laden method of TEAR into ARWAT with the simple language of any adult - 13 years old and up. Elsewhere, I simplify this laboratory curiosity and foreign field tool into a powerhouse for everyday language use. Check out some of my other posts, if you want to see how I do this.
The second reason is because I respect the higher levels of learning and only desire to take the high level learning and make it useful to the average Joe or Jill. I'm acting in the function of a collaborator with what is already written by psychologists. I am NOT expert enough to enter into the grand debate on emotions at the 500 level, but I am smart enough to discern the basics from experts on a 100 level. It pays to know who knows at the highest levels. By-passing their research is a cardinal mistake.
My favorite examples of highly recognized psychologists who deal directly with the emotions are: Daniel Goleman, Robert Plutchik, Richard S. Lazarus, and Paul Ekman. Goleman wrote the most ground breaking book as far as the public is concerned in his book, Emotional Intelligence. I just think we should take what these guys have learned and use it in the classroom, etc. and not only in the therapist's office.
The third reason is that I am a teacher. As a teacher, I feel the primary part of my job is to deal with a mind and therefore with the brain of my students. I have read up in the area of brain science and find Goldman's work to be particularly convincing that the emotions respond before the logic does in the human brain. My view is we need to catch up to the latest in brain science. The other part of brain science is that emotions were at one time associated with social health. That is why the emotions were primarily assigned to psychologists over teachers. That view is now daily being proven to be unfounded. It is not so much a part of the psyche, the soul, or social health as it is part of mental health and the entire nervous system. I find that to be also the lesson of the latest biological advances. So teachers need to deal with emotions before logic.
I have tons of examples to share here. But I am just going to say that in many instances when I as a coach, a teacher, or a minister first addressed the emotions and then the logic, the results were much better than any other options. Logic alone or logic first only works in certain cases, but not on a routine basis. My greatest moments as a coach, teacher, or minister included both together and in that order. My favorite example from the bible is "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom" in contrast to the fictional character Spock in Star Trek who says that "logic is the beginning of wisdom".
The fourth reason and not the least is that while I'm speaking about mental health, I think we have to remove a major stigma associated with this topic. The problem for psychology is their association with abnormal psychology more than normal psychology. There is a stigma that many people would not to go to a counselor to get help, because of their unfortunate associations. The other thing too is that it still is associated with having a social problem, assuming then that there is some breakdown in a person's family upbringing. These associations may be unfair, but they are not going away soon. I was told by a member of one of the minority groups that in those populations the stigma is far worse.
The advantage I have as a coach, a teacher or a minister is that the stigma is not there to the same degree. It is normal to need a coach, it is normal to need a teacher, and it is normal to need a minister's counsel at least now and then. Psychologists, again maybe unfairly, are associated with higher level problems and many people don't like the social stigma that goes with it. Suicidal people, for example, would much rather talk to a friend than to a therapist, though the friend may be totally unequipped for such a deep topic or a topic that deals with the emotions of the nervous system. They may be unable to really help, but at least it is considered within the norm.
Finally, I think associating emotions with the brain is the big breakthrough of psychology as a science, so I think professional teachers need to "buy back" this part of teaching. There was a fairly famous teacher of a fairly famous leader who did not agree with the negative views of emotion that were passed down to him. I am speaking here of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Why can't teachers teach emotions as related to the mind and the logic of differing kinds that are associated with the mind and brain? I don't see any reason not except that they might feel they are outside their area of specialization. That has to change.
As a coach, I was always dealing with emotions. I grew up in a tradition in sports that took a more positive rather than negative view of emotions. I think the real issue is to re-establish the positive regard for emotions rather than a primarily negative one. This is not the first time in history that negative regard held a society back from its promise. Let's break open a new area of promise with teachers who want to tackle emotions and psychologists who agree their handling it alone is overwhelming their system of treatment and help.
So that is why I think I as a coach, a teacher, and a minister can say something about emotions without being a full-blown psychologist. I think it is central to all three and it has to be applied at a younger age level than when people are already in serious trouble. I hope this encourages especially teachers to take back their responsibility. Let's get this done. Our schools need great teachers again.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
