Comment author: adsenanim 18 October 2010 04:43:13AM 0 points [-]

Nice Job!

Can you relate this to Parrondo's Paradox?

Comment author: adsenanim 01 October 2010 05:34:14AM 0 points [-]

I assume this is being done because you can't figure out how to separate important topics with low votes from being overcrowded by less important topics with higher votes?

Imagine, giving up solid scientific ideas to interpretation by those who are not able to, or don't want to put an idea to the test.

Science doesn't vote, it tests, and if the new idea doesn't pass the test, then it is foot-noted and put aside.

Ah, so sad...

If it works, it works, if not it is just an idea of how things might work.

Comment author: Matt_Duing 09 September 2010 05:57:25AM 1 point [-]

The examples on www.patrickjmt.com might help.

Comment author: adsenanim 09 September 2010 03:59:51PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks, nice link.

I must say though that my example is mainly to illustrate the point of Implicit learning (breaking the code) being harder than explicit learning (being given a key).

I prefer breaking the code most times.

I guess the double entendre about Carlin was a bit to implicit... maybe just not funny...

:)

Comment author: adsenanim 08 September 2010 06:09:40PM 0 points [-]

The calculus example is a good one for examining goal-achievement.

I am currently taking Calculus 2, Integration by Trigonometric Substitution is one of the methods.

The textbook I am using is very Implicit in examples explaining this method, and I have thought many times about how much easier it would be if it were to use more Explicit examples.

Implicit examples by nature take more time and effort than explicit examples, making the implicit less likely to be chosen than the explicit.

It would have to be one very highly motivated 8-year-old to pass the calculus test, or one that has an extremely high ability to understand implicit examples.

As far as the goals of a comedian, he/she would have to be very highly motivated and very good at implicit learning to gain anything from 'Garfield and Friends'.

Myself, I would choose George Carlin as an explicit example…

Comment author: [deleted] 06 September 2010 11:14:07AM 2 points [-]

I don't know the why (I was familiar with it as a stand-alone inspirational quote.)

But for clarity's sake: I am a girl and Sarah is my name.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Something's Wrong
Comment author: adsenanim 08 September 2010 05:15:23PM -1 points [-]

One can never assume, :)

My question of "why" relates to the idea that there have been so many examples of a rebellion against society (status quo) by groups and individuals.

Some of these examples are successful, most are not, but all seem to act to make "the great mass of humanity through time" change in a common direction.

It's almost as if we have been evolving (?), and each case of rebellion is a sudden mutation....

If only we could figure out what constitutes a successful mutation.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 06 September 2010 07:11:23AM 2 points [-]

I really like that quote. Teddy Roosevelet speaking at the University of Paris in 1910. (thanks to Brin and Page)

Did you just find that through quotation of the day? Somebody needs to invent a 'relevant-quote' search where you can send it text and it spits out quotes that are relevant to the material.

Comment author: adsenanim 06 September 2010 08:59:17AM *  0 points [-]

SarahC used it in her (?) argument.

I want to know where and why it was said.

Thomas Paine wrote about atheism during a revolution, Martin Luther nailed his argument to a door of a church.

I voted you up for finding the where, but I still want to know the why.

In response to Something's Wrong
Comment author: adsenanim 06 September 2010 06:38:11AM 3 points [-]

I add this only because it provides a greater context:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4758.html

I will vote up anyone who can say in what circumstance this was said.

Comment author: Craig_Heldreth 02 September 2010 05:59:17PM 13 points [-]

It is often said that experiments should be made without preconceived ideas. This is impossible.

--Henri Poincare, Science and Hypothesis.

Comment author: adsenanim 03 September 2010 06:00:09AM *  -2 points [-]

This brings to mind the idea of correlation vs. casualty.

There is the idea that the mind will recognize the combination of multiple sensations as correlation and from that it will develop conceptional reality.

The process of going from correlation to that of causality is one of the process' of science.

Conception, which includes science, is part of the learning process, which should be held as one of the most basic principles of not only human, but of evolutionary process'.

Experimentation requires no preconception,it is part of the evolutionary process' and it happens regardless of the cognitive state.

Preconception is impossible without experimentation.

Comment author: adsenanim 31 August 2010 12:33:09AM 0 points [-]

Thanks NancyLebovitz, that’s the one.

| [...]no one considers the possibility that mere variation (less boredom) improves performance.

The reverse possibility may also be true, more boredom decreases performance and may also cause health problems.

Comment author: adsenanim 31 August 2010 04:59:31AM *  0 points [-]
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 29 August 2010 07:08:58AM 9 points [-]

It's called The Hawthorne Effect. At least in the Wikipedia article, no one considers the possibility that mere variation (less boredom) improves performance.

Comment author: adsenanim 31 August 2010 12:33:09AM 0 points [-]

Thanks NancyLebovitz, that’s the one.

| [...]no one considers the possibility that mere variation (less boredom) improves performance.

The reverse possibility may also be true, more boredom decreases performance and may also cause health problems.

View more: Prev | Next