It is not only important to want something. It is also important to get satisfaction for what you need or want.
Let me illustrate from a time-honored part of contract law. It was considered important in law to consider whether a person is ready, willing, and able to keep a contract. If it was discovered that they were not ready, not willing, and not able to keep a contract that could change a court's ruling.
Please note that the list of ready, willing, and able is not about what someone wants, but about their satisfying the criteria. The unready, etc. is about what is wanted or needed being not met as criteria. Wanting here means you don't have it.
Ready, willing, able, [and seeing] means satisfying a want. I might make a statement that I am satisfied that I am ready, willing, able, and seeing. But I don't think I would make a statement of satisfaction if I am not ready, not willing, not able, and/or not seeing. Then I can't get satisfaction.
So seek what satisfies when it comes to learning. Find something that can meet all the criteria that in the end adds up to satisfying. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/4/2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
Communication Basics: Starting rather than Waiting
Double-blind studies are great, but there are problems with them as well. First, they are in short supply compared to the wealth of all knowledge. Second, double-blind studies change their minds a lot. So while the goals are admirable: 1) we need to raise the quantity of things studied this way, and 2) we need to raise the quality of studies; we can't entrust all of knowledge to them. I say this tongue in cheek, but if we relied only on them for our physical health, we might starve while waiting.
I have people every day come into a nutritional store where I work and they are confused and befuddled by the latest double-blind or not so double-blind studies. Peer-reviewed is also an admirable goal, but still that leaves a lot that we know that is unstudied. So what should we do? Should we wait? Should we ignore their impact and race ahead? Should we through all the studies into the Boston Harbor since they can't agree?
Double-blind is good to eliminate the placebo-effect. But that doesn't mean that all previous results in tests were wrong due to a placebo effect. It means some of them were.
Likewise, peer-reviewed is an excellent quality, but peers can mess up. That is why we have jury trials. Because the peers of law professionals sometimes mess up. So what should a person do?
There is good evidence to show that a lot of knowledge has been tested and tested and tested over generations and is still holding up pretty well. For me, the past yields a lot tests as well. You just can't turn a blind eye to the failures along the way. You need to re-test those.
But also whey look for problems where there are none? Are we going to throw aside the insights of a successful coach like John Wooden, because he didn't double-blind study all his ideas and peer review after every game? Sports psychology is a great branch of further study, but it is in no place as a Johnny Come Lately to replace everything. It is though in a place to look at the cracks or fault lines with due humility.
When I first met John Wooden, he first gave me a copy of his success pyramid. He also gave me his personal phone number and said he would be swilling to talk with me as a younger coach.
He taught me two great things. Start at the beginning and don't run from the calling you have been given.
The lesson here for us is that even double-blind studies and peer-reviewed studies have a starting point. You have to begin from somewhere.at sometime. We don't have all day for all decisions. That is why we add clocks at sporting events and at work and at school. The thing to do during a time block is to determine what puts you at the best starting point of all your options. I would choose Wooden's base over sports psychology's base at the moment.
The point is to both start closer and to start faster. To have no starting point is to start further from the starting point. That is the danger of studies. It is that no one finds a closer place to begin. Remember, somewhere is always better than nowhere and now is always better than later, when it comes to starting. That same advice does not necessarily apply to finishing.
Sports psychology has already begun to study Wooden's insights. I just hope his being rated as the number one coach by ESPN and be other polls will still count for something. His teaching and his coaching were tested over and over many times. Let's remember that a double-blind study and a peer-review paper a full test does not make.every one a teacher or a coach.
What do think the sports psychology people could help with is studying his leadership idea "The Emotions Are Your Enemy". My SWOT analysis says that is a possible weakness in his approach alongside his strengths. But before that study is done, I think a person has to do their own trial and error in life to some degree and get started. To start with Wooden's base in his success pyramid seems to be a safe place to start. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
I have people every day come into a nutritional store where I work and they are confused and befuddled by the latest double-blind or not so double-blind studies. Peer-reviewed is also an admirable goal, but still that leaves a lot that we know that is unstudied. So what should we do? Should we wait? Should we ignore their impact and race ahead? Should we through all the studies into the Boston Harbor since they can't agree?
Double-blind is good to eliminate the placebo-effect. But that doesn't mean that all previous results in tests were wrong due to a placebo effect. It means some of them were.
Likewise, peer-reviewed is an excellent quality, but peers can mess up. That is why we have jury trials. Because the peers of law professionals sometimes mess up. So what should a person do?
There is good evidence to show that a lot of knowledge has been tested and tested and tested over generations and is still holding up pretty well. For me, the past yields a lot tests as well. You just can't turn a blind eye to the failures along the way. You need to re-test those.
But also whey look for problems where there are none? Are we going to throw aside the insights of a successful coach like John Wooden, because he didn't double-blind study all his ideas and peer review after every game? Sports psychology is a great branch of further study, but it is in no place as a Johnny Come Lately to replace everything. It is though in a place to look at the cracks or fault lines with due humility.
When I first met John Wooden, he first gave me a copy of his success pyramid. He also gave me his personal phone number and said he would be swilling to talk with me as a younger coach.
He taught me two great things. Start at the beginning and don't run from the calling you have been given.
The lesson here for us is that even double-blind studies and peer-reviewed studies have a starting point. You have to begin from somewhere.at sometime. We don't have all day for all decisions. That is why we add clocks at sporting events and at work and at school. The thing to do during a time block is to determine what puts you at the best starting point of all your options. I would choose Wooden's base over sports psychology's base at the moment.
The point is to both start closer and to start faster. To have no starting point is to start further from the starting point. That is the danger of studies. It is that no one finds a closer place to begin. Remember, somewhere is always better than nowhere and now is always better than later, when it comes to starting. That same advice does not necessarily apply to finishing.
Sports psychology has already begun to study Wooden's insights. I just hope his being rated as the number one coach by ESPN and be other polls will still count for something. His teaching and his coaching were tested over and over many times. Let's remember that a double-blind study and a peer-review paper a full test does not make.every one a teacher or a coach.
What do think the sports psychology people could help with is studying his leadership idea "The Emotions Are Your Enemy". My SWOT analysis says that is a possible weakness in his approach alongside his strengths. But before that study is done, I think a person has to do their own trial and error in life to some degree and get started. To start with Wooden's base in his success pyramid seems to be a safe place to start. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics:Doing Everything Through one Mind
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
