The Pursuit of Ignorance

[montanadave]

On a regular basis, threads appear in GD discussing various and sundry topics which, after some preliminary jockeying around, devolve into an argument about faith vs. science, belief vs. fact, subjective vs. objective, etc. Not surprisingly, adherents from either camp emerge, a discussion ensues, somebody gets butt hurt, things get testy, and the mods step in to shut it down. The topics which generate these debates are familiar to most and I'd just as soon set them aside.

What is interesting, and perhaps worthy of discussion, is the nature of the knowledge which we possess and how we came to it. Which brings me to the TED talk linked here, in which a neuroscientist from Columbia University, Stuart Firestein, talks about the nature and method of scientific inquiry. For those who follow the types of threads I mentioned previously, his talk is worth the 15 minutes or so. Here's a link to the TED site where there is also a transcript (http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq0_zGzSc8g

The speaker also takes a couple of shots at what he refers to as "the bulimic method of education," in which students are simply given a voluminous amount of information to ingest, regurgitate for the exam, then move onto the next helping of facts. As a consequence, these students never develop the necessary critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity to focus on asking the next question as opposed to just spitting out the required answer.

Anyway, I found it worthwhile. I also find discussions more worthwhile when participants are predisposed to acknowledging their areas of ignorance and doubt, as opposed to being so cocksure of themselves and their respective dogma. A healthy dose of intellectual, theological, philosophical, epistemological, ontological, pick-your-own-ical humility can go a long ways towards personal growth and productive dialogue.

[Koshinn]

I think the best part of law school is the socratic method of teaching. I wish all my classes in high school and undergrad used it, but as class sizes get larger, it becomes more difficult.

Quality teachers that can engage their students' minds and encourage critical thinking should be the rock stars of the modern age, like they were in antiquity.

[chuckman]

This is good. I admit sometimes I get offended, but when I do I just leave the post altogether and remind myself that likely no one on this forum will be swayed by what they read here. I usually forget what the offense was in about 5 minutes, and I never take it personally.

I also admit I do not have all the answers, and many of the answers I think I do have are subject to change as I consider positions and evidence.

[markm]

LOCK THIS SHIT!!! :sarcastic:

[Doc Safari]

The Socratic method is overrated IMHO. I took an Honors level philosophy class in college. After a semester of discussing and debating, one could simply have written on a piece of paper "there are no absolute answers" and adjourned the class after the first day.

[SteyrAUG]

On a regular basis, threads appear in GD discussing various and sundry topics which, after some preliminary jockeying around, devolve into an argument about faith vs. science, belief vs. fact, subjective vs. objective, etc. Not surprisingly, adherents from either camp emerge, a discussion ensues, somebody gets butt hurt, things get testy, and the mods step in to shut it down. The topics which generate these debates are familiar to most and I'd just as soon set them aside.

What is interesting, and perhaps worthy of discussion, is the nature of the knowledge which we possess and how we came to it. Which brings me to the TED talk linked here, in which a neuroscientist from Columbia University, Stuart Firestein, talks about the nature and method of scientific inquiry. For those who follow the types of threads I mentioned previously, his talk is worth the 15 minutes or so. Here's a link to the TED site where there is also a transcript (http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq0_zGzSc8g

The speaker also takes a couple of shots at what he refers to as "the bulimic method of education," in which students are simply given a voluminous amount of information to ingest, regurgitate for the exam, then move onto the next helping of facts. As a consequence, these students never develop the necessary critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity to focus on asking the next question as opposed to just spitting out the required answer.

Anyway, I found it worthwhile. I also find discussions more worthwhile when participants are predisposed to acknowledging their areas of ignorance and doubt, as opposed to being so cocksure of themselves and their respective dogma. A healthy dose of intellectual, theological, philosophical, epistemological, ontological, pick-your-own-ical humility can go a long ways towards personal growth and productive dialogue.

That is actually the most intelligent thing I've seen posted on the internet in a long time.

[SeriousStudent]

......"the bulimic method of education," in which students are simply given a voluminous amount of information to ingest, regurgitate for the exam, then move onto the next helping of facts. As a consequence, these students never develop the necessary critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity to focus on asking the next question as opposed to just spitting out the required answer.

......

I cannot find the words to express the depths of my loathing for this. I fought it as a college student, I fought it as a college professor, and I even fight it at work today.

I recently turned down a candidate at work who has a PhD from an engineering school. The guy I hired to take that spot has a GED. Guess how easy THAT was to sell to HR?

The guy with the GED was a thinker and problem solver. The guy with the PhD was a robot; regurgitated stuff as Dave said.

Thanks for the post, Dave, it's very interesting.

[Endur]

I enjoyed that very much.

[Sensei]

I cannot find the words to express the depths of my loathing for this. I fought it as a college student, I fought it as a college professor, and I even fight it at work today.

I recently turned down a candidate at work who has a PhD from an engineering school. The guy I hired to take that spot has a GED. Guess how easy THAT was to sell to HR?

The guy with the GED was a thinker and problem solver. The guy with the PhD was a robot; regurgitated stuff as Dave said.

Thanks for the post, Dave, it's very interesting.

Is it a problem with our education system or our training methods?

Schools are places where you go to be educated and have your brain filled with information. While our public schools pretty much suck at this, many of our institutions of higher education are among the best in the world. Most of the reputable universities do at least a fair job of laying the foundations of critical thinking - at least for the sciences.

Your training after that education is where you learn to apply the information and really think critically so that you provide something of value. That is why PhD candidates complete post-doctoral training after graduate school and medical doctors complete residencies. It is also why lawyers complete clerkships, electricians undergo apprenticeship, and FBI agents spend 3 years as probies after Quantico. Having the ability to complete the education curriculum is only half the battle...

[SeriousStudent]

Is it a problem with our education system or our training methods?

Schools are places where you go to be educated and have your brain filled with information. While our public schools pretty much suck at this, many of our institutions of higher education are among the best in the world. Most of the reputable universities do at least a fair job of laying the foundations of critical thinking - at least for the sciences.

Your training after that education is where you learn to apply the information and really think critically so that you provide something of value. That is why PhD candidates complete post-doctoral training after graduate school and medical doctors complete residencies. It is also why lawyers complete clerkships, electricians undergo apprenticeship, and FBI agents spend 3 years as probies after Quantico. Having the ability to complete the education curriculum is only half the battle...

I honestly feel it's both. And both of the people I interviewed are unique individuals, of course. The next person I interview might have a BS, MS or nothing. And all might be rock stars in my field.

Personally, I am big fan of training and apprenticeships. It's sort of how the folks on my team work. One gets a laptop and some work to do, and receives assignments of increasing complexity and delicacy.

And the very Internet we are using to discuss this has changed things in my field, perhaps in yours as well. I used to have TCP port numbers memorized, obscure transact-SQL syntax burned into my head, and other computer esoterica such as processor assembly language commands. Now I don't, because I can look it up in a few seconds.

Much like Homer Simpson, it allows me to learn something new, but I don't recall the capital of South Dakota off the top of my head anymore.

I'm absolutely not at all knocking folks that had made through grad school, I managed to do it myself. But that one guy honestly had me baffled, though.

I guess it boils down to my belief/thought/supposition that some people are capable of critical thought and analysis, and others stare at a computer like a pig staring at a wristwatch. They know it's shiny and does stuff, but they have not a clue how it does so. I just prefer not to pay the latter, when I could hire the former.

I'm also very big on promoting from within, and training/mentoring. A young fellow in the organization I work for recently did a excellent job at something, and I have talked to his part of the food chain about some mentoring for him. Very sharp guy, and he "gets it". His last job before he came to us? Dog trainer.

I definitely agree that for your career field, I'm 101 percent in favor of the system you mention. I'm delighted that my personal physician attended a very highly-regarded US medical school, and after that did more impressive programs. He's a really sharp doctor, and a good friend. It sure ain't because he attended the Baby Doc Duvalier School of Medicine in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.

Common sense seems rare sometimes, so much so that it resembles a superpower in a comic book. I guess I just saw too much kryptonite in the teacher's lounge for my tastes.

Sigh - that's probably clear as mud. I spent too much time at work today deboogerifying something a "highly-trained" technician did, and it has left me with a low opinion of some things and people.

Tis' quite a good question you ask, and I appreciate you asking it. It's well worth thinking about.

[montanadave]

While I will not claim to be a "victim" of the educational system, I certainly fell into the trap. I was a good student; I knew how to play the game and earn the grades. Unfortunately, I emerged from college with a false sense of academic-entitlement. I thought the success I had achieved in college would quickly translate into success in the real world. To no one's surprise (with the notable exception of myself), the real world quickly disabused me of that notion. I watched in bewilderment as friends I had run circles around in college left me in the dust as they advanced in their professional careers while I languished. That I could excel in the academic world but suck in the real world was by far the toughest lesson I ever learned. I tried to jump right into a career without having the mentorship or period of professional training necessary to succeed. I simply didn't have the experience to do what I was trying to do. And I failed.

When I see folks these days and someone makes some remark about how smart I was in school, I just laugh and say there's a big difference between being Jeopardy smart and being real world smart. And, truth be told, I'd suck at Jeopardy too because I'd freeze.

Which brings us to another critical piece of the puzzle: temperament. I wanted to be my own boss and succeed as an entrepreneur in a very competitive industry subject to volatile business cycles. Not a business for the faint-hearted or someone craving security. I had the academic background to provide a foundation for success; my brother did not (a liberal arts major and law-school dropout). Guess who ended up working for who? And guess who has enjoyed much greater financial success?

And I don't wish anyone to misinterpret my remarks. No one respects my brother's achievements more than I do. I worked for him and with him over the years and no one is more deserving of success. He earned every bit of it. He learned the business from the ground up and there's not a piece of equipment he can't operate or a job he won't roll up his sleeves and get dirty doing himself. A lot of folks, at a glance, might make some comment about "lucky breaks," failing to appreciate the years and years of hard work, failure and disappointment, and dogged determination that went into someone's "overnight" success. I witnessed a lot of those early days and, quite frankly, I wasn't willing to make the same sacrifices my brother did.

A big difference between the two of us is risk tolerance and stress management (admittedly, he is also a much better analytical thinker than I am). He's willing to roll the dice and take his chances. And he's mentally tougher than I am. I'm risk-averse and don't like high-stress environments. Hell, I had a heart attack at 42. When I worked in healthcare, I HATED being on-call. When I had that pager, I couldn't relax for an instant. I would be exhausted whether I got called out or not. For me, it was like trying to sleep next to a ticking bomb.

Folks are just wired different. And if you're not wired for the occupation it generally doesn't work out very well. Which brings us back to teaching and training methods. I think we need far more internships, mentor-relationships, and apprenticeships across the spectrum. People waste years of study and tons of money punching their educational ticket without fully understanding the occupation they are training for or discovering their individual strengths and weaknesses which will determine the probability of success in that field. And we need better assessment and screening programs to assist people in finding the jobs and occupations they are most suited for, thereby increasing their potential for success, fulfillment, and productivity in their working careers.

Sorry, just rambling this morning. Time for more coffee.

[thopkins22]

The most genuinely successful person I know did not have good grades in college, and maintains that she learned very little in four years. What she did manage to do was get a great internship, and work her butt off every day after. At the age of 28, she's earning $600,000+, doesn't even mention college once in her resume. Her current job required an MBA(which she doesn't have,) but they wanted her enough to hire her anyway on the condition that she gets it within a few years. I genuinely expect her to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company within 10-15 years if she wants to. She's not the most intelligent person I know, she does not have the most impressive education, she's not afraid to admit that she doesn't know a lot of things even in her own field. But her attitude is such that it doesn't matter.

The smartest person I've ever met was absolutely horrid in school. He tested exceptionally well even in things he never studied for, but between ADD and not having a real sense of direction he didn't get off the starting blocks to gain his degree until his mid-20's. Homework was an issue for him, because he never felt the need to do homework on things he understood the first time he heard them etc.... I expect he'll do great things too...but he'll never be as driven as my first example.

High intelligence and ADD often go hand in hand. The problem is that without a goal and a challenge, those people often tend to not drive towards anything as they get overwhelmingly bored with the mundane. We fail these students the worst with our educational system that is set up to teach everyone. My favorite quote from Ayn Rand is "we spend far too much time and money teaching retarded children, and far too little teaching gifted children." My whole point being that it's easier to get 15 students out of a class of 20 to regurgitate shit than it is to get 10 students to genuinely learn. Easier for the teachers, looks better for the administrators, and so forth.

Sensei, in my opinion we do a terrible job of education...especially at some of the most elite institutions. Professional training with very few exceptions exists purely because the students didn't learn much of value in school. Certainly there are some exceptions, where it's building upon what you learned...but those fields are relatively few.

[glocktogo]

The smartest person I've ever met was absolutely horrid in school. He tested exceptionally well even in things he never studied for, but between ADD and not having a real sense of direction he didn't get off the starting blocks to gain his degree until his mid-20's. Homework was an issue for him, because he never felt the need to do homework on things he understood the first time he heard them etc.... I expect he'll do great things too...but he'll never be as driven as my first example.

High intelligence and ADD often go hand in hand. The problem is that without a goal and a challenge, those people often tend to not drive towards anything as they get overwhelmingly bored with the mundane.

You could be describing me specifically here. Drove my teachers nuts. Now I'm the only one in my office without a degree and yet they all come to me for answers. I can be obsessive over details and nuances. If I'm interested in something, it will get worked quickly and precisely. If not, it will languish until I have a deadline to meet. Some of my best work is last minute, but it places significant stress on me personally and yet I can't seem to overcome that tall hurdle which is effective time management. :(