About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, July 13, 2013 - 6:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Joe. You make an interesting distinction - forming versus learning. As you note, Rand's ITOE concerns the former but not the latter.

Calling the first "self-guided" and the second "teacher-guided" seem to make the distinction sharper. An example might also help. I suppose we all got the concept tree by somebody pointing to several examples and saying "that is a tree." We can note the differences between this "teacher-guided" method and what would be the "self-guided" method. The teacher typically does not say things like "trees are a kind of plant life" or point out their many similarities and differences with other things, bushes, crops, flowers, weeds and grass. The "self-guided" method would more likely note such similarities and differences (size, leaves, wood, bark, roots, and so on).

Incidentally, Lev Vygotsky was a Russian psychologist who wrote about the development of children's thought, notably attending to its social setting and the role of language. I read some of his works many years ago and found them interesting.

Post 1

Saturday, July 13, 2013 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You do a lot of thinking, there, Joe.  Thanks.
"What I'm getting at here is that the person forming the concept has enough knowledge to understand the need for the concept, while those learning it may be able to understand the concept and see how it differentiates itself with other things, but they may not grasp the importance of the distinction. They may not be able to see why it is useful. Even if they see some of the reason why it is useful, they may not grasp how useful it is, or all of the reasons why it is useful."
I think at Merlin's point is similar in pointing to self-guided versus teacher-guided.  One thing that would help me in off of this is specific examples.  I find generalizations too easy to make - or too easy for other people to make.  Evidence is proof, or certainly validation if not proof. 

Allow me to suggest that in high school algebra or geometry, or even college freshman physics (common experiences for all of us here, I trust), you can memorize the formulas and recipes for problem solving, and even thereby do well on tests.  At some point though, if you are not just blowing through this for a grade, you think about what you are learning and thereby discover it for yourself

At some level in any area of endeavor - the law, sculpture, engineering - those who break out of the classes of forced learners and take it on for themselves are those who enjoy the process of what you call "formulating concepts." 

I could also go into much about my problems with the word "formulating" which is not how I understand concepts being "formed." 

We all have the experience.  Describing it might be the consequential challenge.

In any case, thanks again, Joseph.


Post 2

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The crash of Asiana airliner brings this all into focus. 
As the Asiana Airlines Inc. (020560) jet neared Los Angeles International Airport, Captain Vic Hooper told his Korean co-pilot to make a visual approach, meaning he’d manually fly instead of letting automation do the work.
The co-pilot froze, leaving them too high and off course, Hooper said about the incident, which occurred several years ago. Hooper said he had to take over the controls to get the Boeing Co. (BA) 777 back on track.
“I don’t need to know this,” Hooper said the co-pilot told him later, explaining why a maneuver that’s second nature to most U.S. airline pilots rattled him. “We just don’t do this.”
Bloomberg here.


Note, however one my wife's computer friends who was a transport pilot sent her a narrative by a training instructor that seems to be questionable.  Having read it - and having some cockpit time myself and having worked for two Japanese companies - nothing in the content seemed extreme or unacceptable prima facie. Nonetheless ...
As questions about Asiana’s training program started to surface, an e-mail written by someone named Tom Brown, claiming to be a former flight simulator instructor who trained Asiana pilots, began circulating online in aviation forums. The e-mail starts out:

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the – 400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots...

Mr. Brown said that South Korean carriers’ poor international safety records had led their employers to bring in foreign pilots to train them. Brown’s message describes a “lack of basic piloting skills” among the South Korean pilots he trained, and says that the foreign instructors were “forced upon [the South Korean carriers] after the amount [sic] of fatal accidents” and faced “ingrained resistance from the Koreans.”

Asiana Airlines had no record of a Tom Brown working for the organization.

The Christian Science Monitor here.
  
And just to add a little political history to the psycho-epistemology:  Sterling Seagrave's The Soong Dynasty is about the three women who actually formed much of China's history in the 20th century.  "One loved the people. One loved the nation. One loved money."  Soong Mei-ling became Madame Chiang kai-Shek.  (Soong Ai-ling married H. H. Kung, the richest man in China.  Soong Ching-ling became Madame Sun Yat-sen.)  Also, just to say, when I mentioned them to a Chinese graduate student I was working with he recited the same formula, "One loved the people..." 

Anyway, so, Chiang Kai-shek was a fascist who sidled up to Mussolini and Hitler.  He brought in Italian flight instructors to train his "air force" and lost all five planes in training.  The Italians had no problem promoting Chinese pilots from "good families."  His wife returned to America where she had been educated, found Claire Chennault, and brought him and his Flying Tigers back to China with her.

... and a footnote... During both World Wars, German pilots tended to come from upper class families, the Junkers and all. They never got their hands dirty. American pilots were just guys.  When an American experienced any mechanical problem, he could usually tell the mechanic what the problem was.  The German pilots could not.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/16, 9:51am)


Post 3

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 5:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Asiana Airlines had no record of a Tom Brown working for the organization.



... I suspect, because the anonymous whistleblower did not want to bring a Gladys Mitchell work of art to the opposite of life.


regards,
Fred

Post 4

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 8:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I had to look up Gladys Mitchell. Yes, we agreed here that he likely used the name to shield himself. However, I did find a New York Times story about the training, that cited a telephone interview with "Thomas W. Brown."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/business/global/asiana-to-bolster-pilot-training.html

The article also quotes him saying that this is not limited to Koreans or Asians. I have to agree based on what little I know first hand. Of course, the Germans excelled at sailplanes because of Versailles, but that only meant that in our time, in Germany (and much of Europe, perhaps) you have to start that way: you cannot just jump into a Cessna or Pilatus. It does make you a better pilot. Anything will fly if you push it hard enough. Sailplanes teach true aviating. (To stay light weight, they carried few instruments. When I flew in one, I had a three inches of yarn hanging taped to the window.)

However, when the FAA revoked the certification of famous air show performer and test pilot Bob Hoover (1995), Hoover went to Australia to get re-certified. I have no idea what flight training is like in Australia.

(Canada is actually ahead of the USA in privatization of private aviation: they charge user fees. Here in the USA private pilots expect free (government) services like weather reports, traffic control, and landing rights. That is a different discussion.)

I gave a talk to a Ruby on Rails group about documentation. I pointed out that in private aviation, we spend as much time in planning the flight as we do in the air. I tied that to what Howard Roark told Peter Keating: to get things done, you must love the doing. Programmers who design from the keyboard do not love the work of planning... which is why 95% of software works 95% of the time. If that were applied to aviation, 10% of flights would include some kind of failures: missed runway, engine out in-flight, instrument failure, structural failure...

In point of fact, you are seven times more likely to die driving your own car as you are being a passenger in a commercial jetliner. But the fatality rate for private pilots is, indeed, seven times greater than for automobile drivers. It has to do with actual miles. We spend far more time in our cars: 12000 to 24000 miles a year. An active private pilot might do 100 miles once a week.

That is why planning is so important. Sporty's Pilot Shop (the largest retailer) sells 57 different flight planning tools.

Post 5

Monday, November 4, 2013 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the comments.

Merlin, I think the "self-guided" vs. "teacher-guided" is a good way of distinguishing the methods.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.