When I learn a language, I have a rough rule that I follow to measure my progress.
It can be easy to get discouraged when learning a language and start to think "I haven't learned anything!". But I think we are often so focused on the final outcome and not the process.
As a result we become very critical of ourselves and then give up before we get anywhere. Language is like a building. We have to build a foundation, and at first it seems as though we are progressing slowly. But then when the foundation is secure, the rest of the building goes up quite quickly.
So when I try to get an idea of how well my foundation is doing, I use these 3 steps:
The first step: Recognition
This is the ability to be able to pick out a word or phrase in natural conversation, regardless of whether you understand the word or not. This is what I have been doing with my Chinese language experiment. After 50 hours I can pick out words if they are spoken clearly at a reasonable pace, for example like how a newscaster speaks. I can follow along with Chinese subtitles and if I know the characters I can learn words this way. This is a step that a lot of people underestimate the importance of and try to bypass. But without building a solid foundation in listening skills, ability to converse in the language is seriously diminished.
The second step: Familiarization
This is the feeling of "I know what that word meant the other day!" and can feel a little frustrating. But this is a good stage. It means that you not only can recognize the sound clearly, but that you also are starting to connect the sound to a meaning. The reason that you cannot recall it is simply that the connection isn't strong enough. With more exposure to the word, the connection between sound and meaning will become stronger. If this feeling of frustration increases, it means that you're progressing.
The third step: Comprehension
This is what everyone looks for straight away. But only when you can easily recognize the word, and it becomes familiar enough to you can you understand it properly and use it in an appropriate context.
Most formalized systems tend to try and get the student to step 3 without taking steps before it. Partly I feel this is because we can measure comprehension much more easily than the other steps.
If taught in an acquisition way, with lots of exposure to comprehensible input, this explains why people will listen for hours and hours, and then finally "get it".
It is important that all these steps are covered when learning a language; that a person can recognize the sound, become familiar with it in natural speech, and comprehend its meaning. But also can be a good measure for a student as to how well they are learning the language. Especially for those that try to use natural approach methods, it can make them less critical of themselves, and it can give them more confidence in the method.
Because even if they aren't "getting it", they may still be progressing anyway.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Moral vs economic choices
In a previous post I touched on thinking of morality as a form of capital. I'd like to talk more about morality in the context of economics.
The general goal of economics is to increase overall welfare for members of a society. So how we define welfare sets the foundation for how economics is used.
Generally, economists use the phrase "standard of living" to differentiate from quality of life. Standard of living refers to the level material comfort available to a person. This is different from quality of life which has many definitions, but for the purposes of this article I will define it vaguely as "what makes life worth living".
Economists usually use this differentiation to stay away from the arena of philosophy and religion to focus solely on material factors of life. Economics is essentially a study of scarcity and choice, and has a much broader scope than just money or material wellbeing. It just isn't often used this way.
Life does not separate easily into little boxes, and sometimes we are faced with choices between what is profitable, and what is right.
What does this mean?
A trick we can use in economics is to redefine phenomena under economic terms and use the science to look at regular problems from another perspective.
The idea of thinking of morality in terms of moral capital help us to understand choices we need to face often in our lives. Just like on a national level, when policy makers need to sometimes choose between social and economic development, sometimes we need to make choices between economic and moral investment.
Let's forget about the other points on this recurring graph and just talk about points B and C.
Here economic capital refers to what we own and can measure; Our tangible goods, such as clothing, gadgets, a house/apartment, a car, etc. Moral capital refers to the immeasurables; how much regret we have, our pride, our peace of mind, our joy of life, etc. We can define what is "right" from the question above as what increases our moral capital.
If we are a salesperson for example, selling a car that we know will break down to a person that cannot afford it. We have the choice to sell the product anyway and convince them it is good, or advise them against buying the product.
Choice 1: Sell.
Incentive - We get commission, perhaps improve our chance for a promotion.
Cost - The regret from taking advantage of the customer, reinforcing the idea that other people are our enemy, and that we must take from them to advance in life.
Choice 2: Advise against.
Incentive - Clear conscience, reinforcing the idea that people are there to help each other.
Cost - Loss of commission, possible problems with our boss, risk losing our job.
This is an example of a choice we can make. Choice 1 increases our economic capital and is a choice at point B on the graph, and choice 2 increases our moral capital and is at point C. Most of us might like to think that we would make choice 2. In reality most of us would make choice 1. Why?
If we are honest with ourselves we would probably admit that getting commission and the chance for promotion is clearly worth more than the small pang of regret we get from selling to this one customer. We might even have convinced ourselves that we feel nothing ("if they're stupid enough to buy it, it's not my fault!").
Part of the problem with this view is that it looks at each choice in isolation. And here's where the economics comes in.
Economics defines the difference between consumption and investment, short-term and long-term. Namely, that consumption increases a persons short-term welfare, but investment increases long-term welfare. If a country spends less money on cars now and puts that money into car factories, in the future it can produce more cars.
People are the same. We can look at our choices in the short-term, as a type of consumption. We think we can "consume" our current peace of mind for economic gain, because we can just get more later. But it doesn't work like that.
Our emotional state is very much a case of long-term investment. Who we become is a result of where we have "invested" our choices. When we chose the moral choice in the example above, the result may not be big now, but we are increasing our moral capital. If we save just $20 a week, it might not seem like much, but it can accumulate to a lot over time. Individual moral actions may not seem to create a big result, but over time we can accumulate a great emotional stability, peace of mind and a sense of joy with life.
Sometimes it is not so easy, sometimes we need to make an immoral choice to survive, but whether we normally reach for point B, or C, or D throughout our life will determine what our life becomes.
We can be materially rich and morally poor, we can be morally rich and materially poor, or we can be somewhere in between.
Where do you want to be?
The general goal of economics is to increase overall welfare for members of a society. So how we define welfare sets the foundation for how economics is used.
Generally, economists use the phrase "standard of living" to differentiate from quality of life. Standard of living refers to the level material comfort available to a person. This is different from quality of life which has many definitions, but for the purposes of this article I will define it vaguely as "what makes life worth living".
Economists usually use this differentiation to stay away from the arena of philosophy and religion to focus solely on material factors of life. Economics is essentially a study of scarcity and choice, and has a much broader scope than just money or material wellbeing. It just isn't often used this way.
Life does not separate easily into little boxes, and sometimes we are faced with choices between what is profitable, and what is right.
What does this mean?
A trick we can use in economics is to redefine phenomena under economic terms and use the science to look at regular problems from another perspective.
The idea of thinking of morality in terms of moral capital help us to understand choices we need to face often in our lives. Just like on a national level, when policy makers need to sometimes choose between social and economic development, sometimes we need to make choices between economic and moral investment.
Let's forget about the other points on this recurring graph and just talk about points B and C.
Here economic capital refers to what we own and can measure; Our tangible goods, such as clothing, gadgets, a house/apartment, a car, etc. Moral capital refers to the immeasurables; how much regret we have, our pride, our peace of mind, our joy of life, etc. We can define what is "right" from the question above as what increases our moral capital.
If we are a salesperson for example, selling a car that we know will break down to a person that cannot afford it. We have the choice to sell the product anyway and convince them it is good, or advise them against buying the product.
Choice 1: Sell.
Incentive - We get commission, perhaps improve our chance for a promotion.
Cost - The regret from taking advantage of the customer, reinforcing the idea that other people are our enemy, and that we must take from them to advance in life.
Choice 2: Advise against.
Incentive - Clear conscience, reinforcing the idea that people are there to help each other.
Cost - Loss of commission, possible problems with our boss, risk losing our job.
This is an example of a choice we can make. Choice 1 increases our economic capital and is a choice at point B on the graph, and choice 2 increases our moral capital and is at point C. Most of us might like to think that we would make choice 2. In reality most of us would make choice 1. Why?
If we are honest with ourselves we would probably admit that getting commission and the chance for promotion is clearly worth more than the small pang of regret we get from selling to this one customer. We might even have convinced ourselves that we feel nothing ("if they're stupid enough to buy it, it's not my fault!").
Part of the problem with this view is that it looks at each choice in isolation. And here's where the economics comes in.
Economics defines the difference between consumption and investment, short-term and long-term. Namely, that consumption increases a persons short-term welfare, but investment increases long-term welfare. If a country spends less money on cars now and puts that money into car factories, in the future it can produce more cars.
People are the same. We can look at our choices in the short-term, as a type of consumption. We think we can "consume" our current peace of mind for economic gain, because we can just get more later. But it doesn't work like that.
Our emotional state is very much a case of long-term investment. Who we become is a result of where we have "invested" our choices. When we chose the moral choice in the example above, the result may not be big now, but we are increasing our moral capital. If we save just $20 a week, it might not seem like much, but it can accumulate to a lot over time. Individual moral actions may not seem to create a big result, but over time we can accumulate a great emotional stability, peace of mind and a sense of joy with life.
Sometimes it is not so easy, sometimes we need to make an immoral choice to survive, but whether we normally reach for point B, or C, or D throughout our life will determine what our life becomes.
We can be materially rich and morally poor, we can be morally rich and materially poor, or we can be somewhere in between.
Where do you want to be?
Monday, August 15, 2011
How to teach a language wrong
After sitting through 8 weeks of some of the worst language teaching I've ever experienced in my life, I have been inspired to write a post about how you can maximize your students mistakes and demoralize them from future learning.
This ironic post is designed to highlight all the wrong things I've seen one person do when teaching, so if you want to do all the right things, I would suggest something close to the opposite of this. Follow on to see how you can "Maximize your Mistakes"!
Firstly, you need to seriously limit how much time students spend practicing. Because language is best trained like a sport, you need to steer students away from anything that will actually improve their skills.
But if you have all this scheduled class time with your students, what should you do?
You need to spend as much time as possible explaining unimportant nuances of the language elements you are teaching. For example, explaining how a single Chinese word is pronounced in different dialects, and the trivial details of how a character is written. But limit this to the unimportant details, or you may be in danger of teaching your students something. Another important point: Never, ever, give examples of how these words might be used in a real life sentence. In fact, never use realistic language with the students at all. This way, when they hear a native speaker talk, they will be completely unfamiliar with it.
Using the language in class is a dangerous slope as you risk putting real information into your class, so as much time as possible should be used for talking about things completely unrelated to language.
So secondly like our teacher you can spend a lot of time talking about your past issues in class. It's a captive audience. Therefore it's like free therapy, isn't it? Furthermore, you can spend extra precious minutes boosting your ego about how much you must know to be teaching a language to all those students.
Thirdly, to ensure the students don't start doing dangerous things like asking questions or experimenting with the language, you need to demoralize them. Here's some of the great ideas used by the teacher in question:
Finally once the students are demoralized and bored with your personal rants, then you can tell them you will teach them one thing, and then continuously change your mind. This will have them second guessing anything that comes out of your mouth and even the most dedicated student should be giving up by now.
So if you follow these 4 simple steps; teach trivial details, keep conversation away from the subject, destroy your students hopes, and make false promises, then congratulations! You have Maximized your Mistakes.
This ironic post is designed to highlight all the wrong things I've seen one person do when teaching, so if you want to do all the right things, I would suggest something close to the opposite of this. Follow on to see how you can "Maximize your Mistakes"!
Firstly, you need to seriously limit how much time students spend practicing. Because language is best trained like a sport, you need to steer students away from anything that will actually improve their skills.
But if you have all this scheduled class time with your students, what should you do?
You need to spend as much time as possible explaining unimportant nuances of the language elements you are teaching. For example, explaining how a single Chinese word is pronounced in different dialects, and the trivial details of how a character is written. But limit this to the unimportant details, or you may be in danger of teaching your students something. Another important point: Never, ever, give examples of how these words might be used in a real life sentence. In fact, never use realistic language with the students at all. This way, when they hear a native speaker talk, they will be completely unfamiliar with it.
Using the language in class is a dangerous slope as you risk putting real information into your class, so as much time as possible should be used for talking about things completely unrelated to language.
So secondly like our teacher you can spend a lot of time talking about your past issues in class. It's a captive audience. Therefore it's like free therapy, isn't it? Furthermore, you can spend extra precious minutes boosting your ego about how much you must know to be teaching a language to all those students.
Thirdly, to ensure the students don't start doing dangerous things like asking questions or experimenting with the language, you need to demoralize them. Here's some of the great ideas used by the teacher in question:
- Tell students that because they haven't studied linguistics or phonology, they are at a serious disadvantage in learning a language
- Tell them that because they are learning a language at a later age, they will never been really good at it
- If their language is very different to the one they are learning, tell them they will never understand the grammar or the nuances of vocabulary fully
- Tell them that if a sound doesn't exist in their native language it will be impossible for the student to make the sound correctly in the future.
Finally once the students are demoralized and bored with your personal rants, then you can tell them you will teach them one thing, and then continuously change your mind. This will have them second guessing anything that comes out of your mouth and even the most dedicated student should be giving up by now.
So if you follow these 4 simple steps; teach trivial details, keep conversation away from the subject, destroy your students hopes, and make false promises, then congratulations! You have Maximized your Mistakes.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
How morality creates happiness
I tend to refer to morality a lot in my posts and in my discussions in life. To me, it is very important. And so I felt that it would be necessary for me to explain what I mean by the word "morality".
Many traditions and religions have their own set of moral rules. It seems the intention of most of these are to ensure social harmony by having everyone follow the same rules.
My idea of morality is different to this.
In a long overdue post on economics, I should talk about consumption vs investment. I'll mention it briefly here. Imagine for example, we are in a community that can only spend its money on pizzas or pizza ovens. The basic idea is if we spend most of our money on pizzas, we can enjoy the benefits now; If we invest most of our money on pizza ovens, we don't get to enjoy it now, but we get the benefits later (namely, being able to make more pizzas).
Morality is about long term happiness. Its short term equivalent is hedonism.
Hedonism is the near instant gratification of our senses. I don't consider hedonism an "evil", but I believe many religions have long warned against hedonism because of it's long term limitations.
From the economics viewpoint, we can have pleasure now, or invest our energy into something pleasurable later. So we have hedonism vs morality. The problem with a hedonistic attitude to life is that while it may be fun now, we adapt to it quickly, and it consumes all our resources. A hedonistic person may enjoy life until their 40s or maybe even their 50s if they are lucky. But the quicker we are gratified by something, the quicker we adapt. Eventually it becomes too hard to find pleasure this way.
It's like reaching the top of a hill. One day we will reach it, and then we can only go downhill. It can also backfire when all the time, money and energy we have put into our life no longer satisfy, and we have spent no time building anything long term. All we can do is look back at the top of the hill and remember how far we have fallen.
Another negative effect of hedonism is that we often see others as a barrier to getting what we want, or the source of what we want, and we seek to take it from them. A whole life of hedonism creates the perception that life is about how much you can take, and that other people are your competition. Life becomes a game you play to win.
On the other hand, investing in morality is like building a staircase. It is slower than running up Hedonism Hill, and in the short run it may seem that you're behind. But there's no upper limit to the staircase. You can just keep adding steps. So when a hedonist has hit their peak, you are still quietly working away on your happiness.
In this way, living a moral life is like investing in your happiness. Moral rules can sound constricting and boring, but they are time tested rules for your long term happiness. Most moral rules are based around the ethic of reciprocity aka the Golden Rule which says to treat others like you want to be treated.
When you want to build long term happiness, you can't create enemies. You need to find a way that is sustainable. And the only way to do that is to find ways to make both yourself and other people happier.
This is different to gratifying what your senses demand in the moment. It is about finding your set of unique skills and talents and how they can be applied to make the world a slightly better place.
In other words, to building happiness long term, you need to seek a life of purpose. When living a moral life, you don't play to win, but you play the game to discover the reason you are playing.
This takes time. I've been spending almost 10 years looking for my purpose. But I'm getting there, and I've learned a lot along the way. As I slowly narrow down and refine my understanding of my place, I've become happier and more content. And each year presents an opportunity to discover something new and try something different. Each year I get to add a new step to my staircase of happiness.
And I'm still looking towards the sky.
Many traditions and religions have their own set of moral rules. It seems the intention of most of these are to ensure social harmony by having everyone follow the same rules.
My idea of morality is different to this.
In a long overdue post on economics, I should talk about consumption vs investment. I'll mention it briefly here. Imagine for example, we are in a community that can only spend its money on pizzas or pizza ovens. The basic idea is if we spend most of our money on pizzas, we can enjoy the benefits now; If we invest most of our money on pizza ovens, we don't get to enjoy it now, but we get the benefits later (namely, being able to make more pizzas).
Morality is about long term happiness. Its short term equivalent is hedonism.
Hedonism is the near instant gratification of our senses. I don't consider hedonism an "evil", but I believe many religions have long warned against hedonism because of it's long term limitations.
From the economics viewpoint, we can have pleasure now, or invest our energy into something pleasurable later. So we have hedonism vs morality. The problem with a hedonistic attitude to life is that while it may be fun now, we adapt to it quickly, and it consumes all our resources. A hedonistic person may enjoy life until their 40s or maybe even their 50s if they are lucky. But the quicker we are gratified by something, the quicker we adapt. Eventually it becomes too hard to find pleasure this way.
It's like reaching the top of a hill. One day we will reach it, and then we can only go downhill. It can also backfire when all the time, money and energy we have put into our life no longer satisfy, and we have spent no time building anything long term. All we can do is look back at the top of the hill and remember how far we have fallen.
Another negative effect of hedonism is that we often see others as a barrier to getting what we want, or the source of what we want, and we seek to take it from them. A whole life of hedonism creates the perception that life is about how much you can take, and that other people are your competition. Life becomes a game you play to win.
On the other hand, investing in morality is like building a staircase. It is slower than running up Hedonism Hill, and in the short run it may seem that you're behind. But there's no upper limit to the staircase. You can just keep adding steps. So when a hedonist has hit their peak, you are still quietly working away on your happiness.
In this way, living a moral life is like investing in your happiness. Moral rules can sound constricting and boring, but they are time tested rules for your long term happiness. Most moral rules are based around the ethic of reciprocity aka the Golden Rule which says to treat others like you want to be treated.
When you want to build long term happiness, you can't create enemies. You need to find a way that is sustainable. And the only way to do that is to find ways to make both yourself and other people happier.
This is different to gratifying what your senses demand in the moment. It is about finding your set of unique skills and talents and how they can be applied to make the world a slightly better place.
In other words, to building happiness long term, you need to seek a life of purpose. When living a moral life, you don't play to win, but you play the game to discover the reason you are playing.
This takes time. I've been spending almost 10 years looking for my purpose. But I'm getting there, and I've learned a lot along the way. As I slowly narrow down and refine my understanding of my place, I've become happier and more content. And each year presents an opportunity to discover something new and try something different. Each year I get to add a new step to my staircase of happiness.
And I'm still looking towards the sky.
Monday, August 1, 2011
What Thailand needs
After my time in Thailand, it feels like home.
Like anyone who feels positive towards where they are, they want to see the place flourish and thrive. I've started to love the country more for what is good, and be saddened by the problems that it has.
Thailand is a middle income country, not a "developing country" (see no more western and developing countries). What this means is that that poverty is becoming less of a concern. Many Thais are starting to be able to buy cars, and even take holidays in places like Korea. They have functioning roads, hospitals, banks and some good universities.
But the country still has a lot to improve.
For one, the country tends to look poorer than it is. If you go to Bangkok or Chiang Mai, the sidewalks are in bad condition, if they are there at all. There is often garbage everywhere. And there are people living in slums (more in Bangkok than up here).
Part of the reason is a lack of community spirit. Most people here tend to think of the problems of themselves, friends and family. Anyone else is considered not their problem. Those that have money will move to a "mu baan" (gated community) and think little of making their city beautiful, clean, or safe.
I think this needs to change. The majority of Thais are generous by nature, but this generosity is not always planned, and usually goes to family and community seniors (such as monks) instead of the common man.
But this I believe will change in time. In fact I'm much more concerned with the Thai attitude to education. And with the ASEAN community in 2015, this will only become more important.
In general, not many Thais tend to value learning as much as other nations in the region. Education is seen as a way of gaining status. Getting the degree is more important than what you learn during your time studying. And there is very little serious commitment to lifelong learning.
I'm not saying that there are not very intelligent Thais working in the country. There are extremely intelligent people here. But often they are marginalized, and unless they come from upper class families, those that would become very well educated are discouraged by society from doing so.
This has lead to the unfortunate stereotype that Thai people are stupid. For the love of this country, it is a stereotype I hope one day will be broken.
Many of Thailand's neighbors such as Cambodia and Vietnam are starting to take education much more seriously. This is not just the government, but the people as well. If Thai people don't change this attitude with the lowering of economic barriers in 2015, the country may lose its high value well paying jobs and revert to low value manufacturing and agriculture.
It's not just education. Thailand has a reputation for some good quality specialized products (such as car components) in south east Asia, but in general there isn't the same attention to detail here that is displayed in countries like Japan and Korea. This combined with a lack of planning for the future makes Thailand reactive, rather than proactive.
The country has the base to be a key country in the region and an important country in the world. But if it wants to grow, it needs to do some things, like:
Celebrate intellectual heroes. Running contests, televised debates, and giving awards for significant academic achievements can give people the social reinforcement they need to educate themselves, if that is their interest.
Develop community spirit. By creating a pride in the quality of ones neighborhood and community, the Thai spirit of generosity could become a very powerful force in tackling many of the social problems in the country.
Become more future focused. While many residents are focused on having fun now, the problem is that many big problems get left until too late. By encouraging people to think a little more into the future they will start to fix problems before they get too big.
Read!. Find ways to get Thai people to enjoy reading more. It doesn't matter what, it can be whatever they are interested in. But more reading leads to more information in the heads of Thai citizens, and to more authors producing original and creative works in the language.
There is a cost to economic development, but in Thailand's current position, I believe many social problems can be positively impacted by economic development. By raising income levels, the incentive to traffic drugs and people decrease. Less expats who come here from the wrong reasons will be able to afford it, improving the quality of the foreigner population here. And more money available can help the government improve its welfare policies like health care and the old age pension, which is currently not sufficient. And, as the other countries around it are growing, Thailand will actually devolve if it remains stagnant.
The Thai culture has some great things to show the world, and I would like to see the people get richer and the country prosper economically, so that internationally people start taking Thailand more seriously.
Like anyone who feels positive towards where they are, they want to see the place flourish and thrive. I've started to love the country more for what is good, and be saddened by the problems that it has.
Thailand is a middle income country, not a "developing country" (see no more western and developing countries). What this means is that that poverty is becoming less of a concern. Many Thais are starting to be able to buy cars, and even take holidays in places like Korea. They have functioning roads, hospitals, banks and some good universities.
But the country still has a lot to improve.
For one, the country tends to look poorer than it is. If you go to Bangkok or Chiang Mai, the sidewalks are in bad condition, if they are there at all. There is often garbage everywhere. And there are people living in slums (more in Bangkok than up here).
Part of the reason is a lack of community spirit. Most people here tend to think of the problems of themselves, friends and family. Anyone else is considered not their problem. Those that have money will move to a "mu baan" (gated community) and think little of making their city beautiful, clean, or safe.
I think this needs to change. The majority of Thais are generous by nature, but this generosity is not always planned, and usually goes to family and community seniors (such as monks) instead of the common man.
But this I believe will change in time. In fact I'm much more concerned with the Thai attitude to education. And with the ASEAN community in 2015, this will only become more important.
In general, not many Thais tend to value learning as much as other nations in the region. Education is seen as a way of gaining status. Getting the degree is more important than what you learn during your time studying. And there is very little serious commitment to lifelong learning.
I'm not saying that there are not very intelligent Thais working in the country. There are extremely intelligent people here. But often they are marginalized, and unless they come from upper class families, those that would become very well educated are discouraged by society from doing so.
This has lead to the unfortunate stereotype that Thai people are stupid. For the love of this country, it is a stereotype I hope one day will be broken.
Many of Thailand's neighbors such as Cambodia and Vietnam are starting to take education much more seriously. This is not just the government, but the people as well. If Thai people don't change this attitude with the lowering of economic barriers in 2015, the country may lose its high value well paying jobs and revert to low value manufacturing and agriculture.
It's not just education. Thailand has a reputation for some good quality specialized products (such as car components) in south east Asia, but in general there isn't the same attention to detail here that is displayed in countries like Japan and Korea. This combined with a lack of planning for the future makes Thailand reactive, rather than proactive.
The country has the base to be a key country in the region and an important country in the world. But if it wants to grow, it needs to do some things, like:
Celebrate intellectual heroes. Running contests, televised debates, and giving awards for significant academic achievements can give people the social reinforcement they need to educate themselves, if that is their interest.
Develop community spirit. By creating a pride in the quality of ones neighborhood and community, the Thai spirit of generosity could become a very powerful force in tackling many of the social problems in the country.
Become more future focused. While many residents are focused on having fun now, the problem is that many big problems get left until too late. By encouraging people to think a little more into the future they will start to fix problems before they get too big.
Read!. Find ways to get Thai people to enjoy reading more. It doesn't matter what, it can be whatever they are interested in. But more reading leads to more information in the heads of Thai citizens, and to more authors producing original and creative works in the language.
There is a cost to economic development, but in Thailand's current position, I believe many social problems can be positively impacted by economic development. By raising income levels, the incentive to traffic drugs and people decrease. Less expats who come here from the wrong reasons will be able to afford it, improving the quality of the foreigner population here. And more money available can help the government improve its welfare policies like health care and the old age pension, which is currently not sufficient. And, as the other countries around it are growing, Thailand will actually devolve if it remains stagnant.
The Thai culture has some great things to show the world, and I would like to see the people get richer and the country prosper economically, so that internationally people start taking Thailand more seriously.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Can people Vs Should people
In this world there are two types of people.
We come into this world not knowing what is acceptable and what is not. We don't know that it's not okay to poop our pants in front of everyone, or cough in somebodies face. But as we grow older this is the kind of stuff we need to learn in order to get along.
We start by relying on external measures. When mom or dad is angry with us, we know we have done something unacceptable. We learn over time to do less things that make mom and dad (and other people) angry with us, and do things that make them happy.
To an extent.
The limitation to this method is that we only base our actions on what is immediately reacted upon by others. We place ourselves at their mercy and disempower ourselves. But worst of all, we ignore the results of our actions that have far reaching effects.
People who think like this I call "can" people. They are mostly concerned with what other people think of them, and act on stuff they think they can "get away" with.
People like this are dependent on external rules for their morality. With social and explicit systems, such as laws and the threat of social rejection, people in the extreme end of this spectrum will simply act on their own gratifications, and only consider their immediate situation.
Most people, while not as extreme as the example above, fall into this category.
It is why so many of us around the world feel so much pressure to follow the majority. We are concerned with the external values presented around us because we feel weak to fight popular opinion. The idea of creating a more moral society for someone with this viewpoint is to create an external system of behaviors that cannot be corrupted.
The modern system of morality that focuses on behavior morality has encouraged this view.
External measures can never be incorruptible, nor are they the only method used to evaluate the morality of our actions.
As we develop an understanding of social norms, we start to develop the capacity to critically analyse these norms. We can pattern match our moral rules to outcomes in the world and use wisdom to refine our morality.
This creates an internal sense of morality that belongs to the group I call "should" people. Should people are focused more on developing character than on behavior. They ask themselves, "should I do this" before they act. They refer to their internal sense of morality before they act on something.
While in reality most people will fall on a spectrum between can people and should people, it is my experience that very view people sit firmly in the should category, at least in the time I have been alive.
We like to focus on what is easily measurable and so we like behavior modification. But not all aspects of life are easily measurable, including very important things like respect, happiness, and honor.
An extremist "can" person is morally bankrupt, only concerned with what benefits themselves, and mostly in the short run. We are encouraging this attitude when we ignore the importance of developing moral character.
An extremist "should" person can be as harmful, considering their moral feelings superior to all others and can sometimes be destructive to others. They are often concerned with the long run benefits to themselves and others at the expense of the now. We moved away from an old system of this, where a person of honor was considered incapable of doing harm, and would have a leniency in the law that allowed at the extreme abuses of authority to occur.
We need both external and internal measures to define our morality. It is important to consider the groups values, especially in the short term or we may bring harm to others. But long term, it is important for us to build character, a sense of what is beneficial and what is harmful. And to strengthen our desire to act in beneficial ways, and weaken our desire to act in harmful ways.
We come into this world not knowing what is acceptable and what is not. We don't know that it's not okay to poop our pants in front of everyone, or cough in somebodies face. But as we grow older this is the kind of stuff we need to learn in order to get along.
We start by relying on external measures. When mom or dad is angry with us, we know we have done something unacceptable. We learn over time to do less things that make mom and dad (and other people) angry with us, and do things that make them happy.
To an extent.
The limitation to this method is that we only base our actions on what is immediately reacted upon by others. We place ourselves at their mercy and disempower ourselves. But worst of all, we ignore the results of our actions that have far reaching effects.
People who think like this I call "can" people. They are mostly concerned with what other people think of them, and act on stuff they think they can "get away" with.
People like this are dependent on external rules for their morality. With social and explicit systems, such as laws and the threat of social rejection, people in the extreme end of this spectrum will simply act on their own gratifications, and only consider their immediate situation.
Most people, while not as extreme as the example above, fall into this category.
It is why so many of us around the world feel so much pressure to follow the majority. We are concerned with the external values presented around us because we feel weak to fight popular opinion. The idea of creating a more moral society for someone with this viewpoint is to create an external system of behaviors that cannot be corrupted.
The modern system of morality that focuses on behavior morality has encouraged this view.
External measures can never be incorruptible, nor are they the only method used to evaluate the morality of our actions.
As we develop an understanding of social norms, we start to develop the capacity to critically analyse these norms. We can pattern match our moral rules to outcomes in the world and use wisdom to refine our morality.
This creates an internal sense of morality that belongs to the group I call "should" people. Should people are focused more on developing character than on behavior. They ask themselves, "should I do this" before they act. They refer to their internal sense of morality before they act on something.
While in reality most people will fall on a spectrum between can people and should people, it is my experience that very view people sit firmly in the should category, at least in the time I have been alive.
We like to focus on what is easily measurable and so we like behavior modification. But not all aspects of life are easily measurable, including very important things like respect, happiness, and honor.
An extremist "can" person is morally bankrupt, only concerned with what benefits themselves, and mostly in the short run. We are encouraging this attitude when we ignore the importance of developing moral character.
An extremist "should" person can be as harmful, considering their moral feelings superior to all others and can sometimes be destructive to others. They are often concerned with the long run benefits to themselves and others at the expense of the now. We moved away from an old system of this, where a person of honor was considered incapable of doing harm, and would have a leniency in the law that allowed at the extreme abuses of authority to occur.
We need both external and internal measures to define our morality. It is important to consider the groups values, especially in the short term or we may bring harm to others. But long term, it is important for us to build character, a sense of what is beneficial and what is harmful. And to strengthen our desire to act in beneficial ways, and weaken our desire to act in harmful ways.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Greater fear theory: How nations are changed
My last culture post was about Greater Fear Theory. This post extends this idea to nations.
I think we are often concerned with the world around us. Changing ourselves can be scary, so we look at changing our situation so it can avoid setting off our negative triggers, and can set off our positive triggers.
But there are times when changing society can be beneficial. Especially when it is done for the needs of others. (See next post on What Thailand Needs, coming up in 2 weeks)
There's no doubt that sometimes the collective values we hold can cause suffering to others, or even ourselves. Having lived in Thailand for 3 years now, I can attest that the western drive to always be somebody "special" and better than others has led to an erosion of community. It's more unusual for people to be lonely here and much easier to find people to support them and help them. Many people are also happier with a comfortable "average" life leading to less stress and all the problems that go along with it. I think modern countries should do better than dismissing countries like Thailand as "less developed" and try to learn from what is good here.
But in Thailand there are major problems, and part of it comes from an unwillingness to confront the uncomfortable things in life (the Sabai Sabai life). There are 1000s of illegal abortions, domestic abuse cases, drink driving deaths and emotionally based shootings in this country every year. And that's partly to do with the fact that many Thais don't want to be a buzzkill.
No matter what country you are from however, there are problems to face. And sometimes they get avoided because the populace fall into a comfortable complacency. And here greater fear theory works on a national level.
This can be initiated by people, or as "unintentional events".
Often when it is initiated by people (normally politicians), the results are bad. Nazi Germany was founded on the fear of inferior races like Jewish people and tried to eliminate them. World war 2 imperial Japan was founded on the fear of inferior Asian cultures that needed to be cleansed and educated in Japanese ways. In both these cases, the average German or Japanese wouldn't have committed the atrocities they did. But they were afraid.
The USA went to war in WWII and this ended the great depression. It's a tactic that has been used by American presidents ever since. Unfortunately they are starting only now to realize that a war is only stimulates the economy if that economy is based on manufacturing.
People know these events and so rightly are very concerned the use of fear in politics. But can fear be used for good?
In my last post, the death of my mother through cancer was a shock that pushed me into a life where I am now much happier and more joyful than ever. It was not an "intentional" event. Let's look at unintentional outcomes in some nations.
Germany has rebuilt itself on the concept of co-operation rather than dominance. WWII was horrible for German citizens as well as other Europeans. This memory has created a collective fear about centralized political control and propaganda. They now have one of the freest medias in the world and are deeply focused on getting EU members to co-operate.
Japan has recovered from the devastation to become one of the world's leading trading nations. Together with Germany, they are the worlds top advocates for nuclear demilitarization and global peace initiatives.
They do this because the results of war have been real and immediate to them. In the US, the battle ground has always been somewhere far away, and so this hasn't prompted a change in behavior there. We can see the result of the twin towers attack, which while tragic, it was a tiny number of casualties on their soil compared to what happened in Europe or in Asia (the Japanese are believed to have massacred over 20 million people in North Eastern China during WWII).
These have all been events that were never intended. But the reality of them and the immediacy of their results told the population that change needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.
I don't advocate that any of us seek to create some horrible event to initiate change. We have a remarkable gift for imagination that allows us a preview of events without having to "buy the ticket". But it does help understand why some nations don't appear to want to change. They're comfortable.
Many of the nations that have undergone great changes have had some horrible historical events. I believe this is what has kicked people out of their complacency and on a move towards a better future.
Some countries never get out of this change and suffer from repeated atrocities, like ethnic conflicts in some African countries. Which shows that fear is enough to initiate change, but benevolence is needed to use it for good.
I think we are often concerned with the world around us. Changing ourselves can be scary, so we look at changing our situation so it can avoid setting off our negative triggers, and can set off our positive triggers.
But there are times when changing society can be beneficial. Especially when it is done for the needs of others. (See next post on What Thailand Needs, coming up in 2 weeks)
There's no doubt that sometimes the collective values we hold can cause suffering to others, or even ourselves. Having lived in Thailand for 3 years now, I can attest that the western drive to always be somebody "special" and better than others has led to an erosion of community. It's more unusual for people to be lonely here and much easier to find people to support them and help them. Many people are also happier with a comfortable "average" life leading to less stress and all the problems that go along with it. I think modern countries should do better than dismissing countries like Thailand as "less developed" and try to learn from what is good here.
But in Thailand there are major problems, and part of it comes from an unwillingness to confront the uncomfortable things in life (the Sabai Sabai life). There are 1000s of illegal abortions, domestic abuse cases, drink driving deaths and emotionally based shootings in this country every year. And that's partly to do with the fact that many Thais don't want to be a buzzkill.
No matter what country you are from however, there are problems to face. And sometimes they get avoided because the populace fall into a comfortable complacency. And here greater fear theory works on a national level.
This can be initiated by people, or as "unintentional events".
Often when it is initiated by people (normally politicians), the results are bad. Nazi Germany was founded on the fear of inferior races like Jewish people and tried to eliminate them. World war 2 imperial Japan was founded on the fear of inferior Asian cultures that needed to be cleansed and educated in Japanese ways. In both these cases, the average German or Japanese wouldn't have committed the atrocities they did. But they were afraid.
The USA went to war in WWII and this ended the great depression. It's a tactic that has been used by American presidents ever since. Unfortunately they are starting only now to realize that a war is only stimulates the economy if that economy is based on manufacturing.
People know these events and so rightly are very concerned the use of fear in politics. But can fear be used for good?
In my last post, the death of my mother through cancer was a shock that pushed me into a life where I am now much happier and more joyful than ever. It was not an "intentional" event. Let's look at unintentional outcomes in some nations.
Germany has rebuilt itself on the concept of co-operation rather than dominance. WWII was horrible for German citizens as well as other Europeans. This memory has created a collective fear about centralized political control and propaganda. They now have one of the freest medias in the world and are deeply focused on getting EU members to co-operate.
Japan has recovered from the devastation to become one of the world's leading trading nations. Together with Germany, they are the worlds top advocates for nuclear demilitarization and global peace initiatives.
They do this because the results of war have been real and immediate to them. In the US, the battle ground has always been somewhere far away, and so this hasn't prompted a change in behavior there. We can see the result of the twin towers attack, which while tragic, it was a tiny number of casualties on their soil compared to what happened in Europe or in Asia (the Japanese are believed to have massacred over 20 million people in North Eastern China during WWII).
These have all been events that were never intended. But the reality of them and the immediacy of their results told the population that change needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.
I don't advocate that any of us seek to create some horrible event to initiate change. We have a remarkable gift for imagination that allows us a preview of events without having to "buy the ticket". But it does help understand why some nations don't appear to want to change. They're comfortable.
Many of the nations that have undergone great changes have had some horrible historical events. I believe this is what has kicked people out of their complacency and on a move towards a better future.
Some countries never get out of this change and suffer from repeated atrocities, like ethnic conflicts in some African countries. Which shows that fear is enough to initiate change, but benevolence is needed to use it for good.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Implict versus explicit learning
As we standardize education globally, we start focusing on testable subjects. As Sir Ken Robinson says, "we start training children from the neck up, and a little to one side".
Testable subjects with clear rules are called explicit. They have clear rules and a top down transmission of knowledge from teacher to student. And they are ideally suited to a classroom environment.
The result of this is that they train an area of the mind involved in explicit memory.
This is the famous iceberg analogy used to explain the difference between explicit and implicit. The explicit section of the iceberg (referring to the conscious mind) is the part we can see above water. The submerged part refers to our subconscious mind, the implicit section.
Interestingly enough, many courses that introduce this analogy such as my organizational behavior class continue to teach everything in an explicit fashion, undermining its own legitimacy as a valid course. But I digress.
The importance of this is to understand how implicit learning works. Implicit learning uses different areas of the brain and nervous system involved in creating implicit memory.
Learning occurs in a biological sense through the creation and strengthening of neural pathways called synapses. The synapses create activation-response circuits that we refer to as behavior.
This occurs whether learning is implicit or explicit. In explicit learning, we are conscious of exactly what we have learned and can easily explain it. With implicit it is much more indirect. This leads in people discounting it, or feeling like they haven't "learned anything".
Most physical movement for example relies on implicit learning. It's how even people who have impaired short term memory (such as those who've had head injuries) are able to learn certain things such as new movements, even when they have forgotten the memory of actually learning it. In sports it is often referred to as "muscle memory".
It is not just movement that is learned implicitly. Our emotional reactions are often conditioned in the same way, which is why we will sometimes act a certain way but have difficulty saying why.
Natural language is subject to this same learning, for better and worse. The "illusion as truth effect" experiment referred to in the wikipedia entry above and other research indicates we are primed towards language that is familiar. We are more likely to feel comfortable with it and believe it to be true. It is also why if we want to be happier, we should stop talking so much about our misery and talk more about our potential. And why if we want to get over racism, celebrating diversity is the last thing we should do. We should be talking about the similarities of all people, and not celebrating "racial differences".
As we become older and are run through the modern day education system, we become "educated". "Educated" in this case means to rely on the explicit functions of the mind uniquely. It carries the dogma that explicit learning is superior to implicit.
In reality, explicit learning is more applicable to certain types of learning. Implicit based learning is better for others. Many trades require extensive experience that can only be gained implicitly. Traditionally, Japanese would spend years observing masters of a trade before attempting the skill themselves. This is why we hear about ancient Sushi chefs not even doing more than making balls of rice for years before they start on sushi.
I propose that adults can still learn language this way. There are enough examples of people who have learned languages as adults to a native level for this to be a valid assumption. But as far as I know there hasn't been any major scientific studies of this.
So we get fooled by explicit learning dominated linguists and psychologists who tell us it is not possible to become like a native in a language once we get too old. Most of these people have never experienced learning another language, or have had very limited experience. Almost all of them have only tried explicit language learning methods, and then declared all language learning methods will not work.
To recognize the difference between explicit and implicit is knowledge, but to know which one is best for a situation is wisdom.
Testable subjects with clear rules are called explicit. They have clear rules and a top down transmission of knowledge from teacher to student. And they are ideally suited to a classroom environment.
The result of this is that they train an area of the mind involved in explicit memory.
This is the famous iceberg analogy used to explain the difference between explicit and implicit. The explicit section of the iceberg (referring to the conscious mind) is the part we can see above water. The submerged part refers to our subconscious mind, the implicit section.
Interestingly enough, many courses that introduce this analogy such as my organizational behavior class continue to teach everything in an explicit fashion, undermining its own legitimacy as a valid course. But I digress.
The importance of this is to understand how implicit learning works. Implicit learning uses different areas of the brain and nervous system involved in creating implicit memory.
Learning occurs in a biological sense through the creation and strengthening of neural pathways called synapses. The synapses create activation-response circuits that we refer to as behavior.
This occurs whether learning is implicit or explicit. In explicit learning, we are conscious of exactly what we have learned and can easily explain it. With implicit it is much more indirect. This leads in people discounting it, or feeling like they haven't "learned anything".
Most physical movement for example relies on implicit learning. It's how even people who have impaired short term memory (such as those who've had head injuries) are able to learn certain things such as new movements, even when they have forgotten the memory of actually learning it. In sports it is often referred to as "muscle memory".
It is not just movement that is learned implicitly. Our emotional reactions are often conditioned in the same way, which is why we will sometimes act a certain way but have difficulty saying why.
Natural language is subject to this same learning, for better and worse. The "illusion as truth effect" experiment referred to in the wikipedia entry above and other research indicates we are primed towards language that is familiar. We are more likely to feel comfortable with it and believe it to be true. It is also why if we want to be happier, we should stop talking so much about our misery and talk more about our potential. And why if we want to get over racism, celebrating diversity is the last thing we should do. We should be talking about the similarities of all people, and not celebrating "racial differences".
As we become older and are run through the modern day education system, we become "educated". "Educated" in this case means to rely on the explicit functions of the mind uniquely. It carries the dogma that explicit learning is superior to implicit.
In reality, explicit learning is more applicable to certain types of learning. Implicit based learning is better for others. Many trades require extensive experience that can only be gained implicitly. Traditionally, Japanese would spend years observing masters of a trade before attempting the skill themselves. This is why we hear about ancient Sushi chefs not even doing more than making balls of rice for years before they start on sushi.
I propose that adults can still learn language this way. There are enough examples of people who have learned languages as adults to a native level for this to be a valid assumption. But as far as I know there hasn't been any major scientific studies of this.
So we get fooled by explicit learning dominated linguists and psychologists who tell us it is not possible to become like a native in a language once we get too old. Most of these people have never experienced learning another language, or have had very limited experience. Almost all of them have only tried explicit language learning methods, and then declared all language learning methods will not work.
To recognize the difference between explicit and implicit is knowledge, but to know which one is best for a situation is wisdom.
Friday, July 15, 2011
No more western and developing countries
Since I live in Thailand, I often notice comments on the "developing world" and the "third world".
Often these comments are fairly condescending, thinking life must be horrible. While it's sometimes inconvenient, it's often not as bad as people on the outside think, and in some ways better than the west.
If you have time, have a look at Hans Roslings data overview on TED.com. It's good to see a statistical over view for what can be seen in countries like Thailand if you go looking for it.
I find the point about the conception of "us" the western world and "them" the third world interesting.
In fact, most people don't use the term "third world" correctly. The term was created in the cold war era by the Americans who referred to the "first world" as the allied forces countries, the "second world" as those countries aligned with the soviet union, and the "third world" as everybody else. So when I hear somebody refer to Thailand or any other country as "third world", I immediately doubt that their opinion will be informed.
Also when we refer to development as an issue, we at least need to consider development in two broad categories, social and economic development.
As we saw in the video, many countries in the world are fast approaching equal levels of life expectancy and child mortality in the west. Life expectancy in Thailand and many other south east Asian countries is about 70, only 8-10 years behind OECD countries. And they're catching up.
Of course health measures are not the only indicators. There are other indicators, such as the Press Freedom Index, where in particular Thailand does not do too well. But in fact that rating is a result of the banning of material considered offensive to the Monarchy or to Buddhism. Otherwise the press is quite free here. So it shows the importance of contextualizing the data and the ideas we have about countries.
Economically, income levels are lower, but not on the scale we first conceived of the idea of "us" and "them".
Here we see a graph from Hans Roslings very easy to use software Gapminder. We can see in the post world war 2 period that Australia, the US and the UK are sitting comfortably with long lives and on average $10,000 or so dollars per year.
Even after adjusting for cheaper local goods (which economists call "Purchasing Power Parity" or PPP), The average Thai was only living about 42 years and earning about $800 per year.
According to the data, Thais were earning less than 10% of what westerners were and living about only half the amount of time.
So let's look at these countries today.
The western countries have gotten somewhat healthier and richer according to the stats. Now we are living about 80 years on average (up 14%) and make on average $40,000 per year (a 300% gain). Not bad.
But Thailand has done even better.
Life expectancy is up from 42 to 70, a 67% gain, and only 12.5% below that of the west. And much of this can be accounted for by high levels of AIDs in the country.
An average Thais income is about $8000 a year, adjusted for purchasing power. This is a 900% gain. And most importantly, it is only about 20% of the where the western countries are now, and is at the same level the west was post world war 2.
And, with an average 5% GDP growth per year, if social stability can be maintained, Thailand could reach western levels within a generation.
So what does this mean anyway?
It means that the concept of the "western" and the "developing" worlds is becoming obsolete and incorrect. More and more countries are getting richer and healthier and the similarities between countries are becoming greater than the differences.
Within the next few decades, most countries will see greater inequalities in their own country than outside it.
Perhaps countries one day might stop looking down on other countries, and look instead for ideas and inspiration from them.
Often these comments are fairly condescending, thinking life must be horrible. While it's sometimes inconvenient, it's often not as bad as people on the outside think, and in some ways better than the west.
If you have time, have a look at Hans Roslings data overview on TED.com. It's good to see a statistical over view for what can be seen in countries like Thailand if you go looking for it.
I find the point about the conception of "us" the western world and "them" the third world interesting.
In fact, most people don't use the term "third world" correctly. The term was created in the cold war era by the Americans who referred to the "first world" as the allied forces countries, the "second world" as those countries aligned with the soviet union, and the "third world" as everybody else. So when I hear somebody refer to Thailand or any other country as "third world", I immediately doubt that their opinion will be informed.
Also when we refer to development as an issue, we at least need to consider development in two broad categories, social and economic development.
As we saw in the video, many countries in the world are fast approaching equal levels of life expectancy and child mortality in the west. Life expectancy in Thailand and many other south east Asian countries is about 70, only 8-10 years behind OECD countries. And they're catching up.
Of course health measures are not the only indicators. There are other indicators, such as the Press Freedom Index, where in particular Thailand does not do too well. But in fact that rating is a result of the banning of material considered offensive to the Monarchy or to Buddhism. Otherwise the press is quite free here. So it shows the importance of contextualizing the data and the ideas we have about countries.
Economically, income levels are lower, but not on the scale we first conceived of the idea of "us" and "them".
Here we see a graph from Hans Roslings very easy to use software Gapminder. We can see in the post world war 2 period that Australia, the US and the UK are sitting comfortably with long lives and on average $10,000 or so dollars per year.
Even after adjusting for cheaper local goods (which economists call "Purchasing Power Parity" or PPP), The average Thai was only living about 42 years and earning about $800 per year.
According to the data, Thais were earning less than 10% of what westerners were and living about only half the amount of time.
So let's look at these countries today.
The western countries have gotten somewhat healthier and richer according to the stats. Now we are living about 80 years on average (up 14%) and make on average $40,000 per year (a 300% gain). Not bad.
But Thailand has done even better.
Life expectancy is up from 42 to 70, a 67% gain, and only 12.5% below that of the west. And much of this can be accounted for by high levels of AIDs in the country.
An average Thais income is about $8000 a year, adjusted for purchasing power. This is a 900% gain. And most importantly, it is only about 20% of the where the western countries are now, and is at the same level the west was post world war 2.
And, with an average 5% GDP growth per year, if social stability can be maintained, Thailand could reach western levels within a generation.
So what does this mean anyway?
It means that the concept of the "western" and the "developing" worlds is becoming obsolete and incorrect. More and more countries are getting richer and healthier and the similarities between countries are becoming greater than the differences.
Within the next few decades, most countries will see greater inequalities in their own country than outside it.
Perhaps countries one day might stop looking down on other countries, and look instead for ideas and inspiration from them.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The input vs output debate
If you get into conversations with people passionate about language acquisition, they tend to fall into one of two camps. Usually, they are an "outie" or an "innie".
That is, they either strongly believe that a learner should maximize their output, or maximize their input in order to best start learning a language.
I fall into the input camp. I believe it's important to maximize input as much as possible in the first 6 months to 1 year before the learner starts to focus on output. Without having prior experience with the language, then when it comes to production the learner has no reference to draw on to form utterances.
Often, rules just don't cut it.
I present my arguments for each of the four main components of language.
Pragmatics
This is the process of connecting language with context. In such a way something like "whatever" can have different meanings depending on the context of which it is used (such as declaring your indifference, or indicating that you want a person to shutup).
This is almost impossible to learn except by exposure to real life situations, or through TV shows and other video input. Most supporters of output place this kind of learning as a final stage. I suggest starting exposure to this kind of input from day one. Many complex sentences will not be understood at first, but simple ones can be picked up fairly quickly. For example, in 50 hours of Chinese exposure I've learned 2 ways of saying "let's go" depending on urgency and the verb "to go" which is different.
I feel that with enough exposure, this creates a link with certain phonetic patterns and situations (like identifying levels of formality by phonetics, describing an academic subject compared to describing a sport, etc).
Phonetics
The output argument generally tends towards a listen-and-practice approach. The idea being that phonetic sounds need to be practiced over and over again until the vocal chords and mouth learn to make the sounds required in the new language.
What inputters believe, and as my experience has shown, having a good level of input creates an instinct for the correct sounds of the language they are learning. It also gives them time to tune their ear to the phonetics, refining their ability to hear nuances in the sounds. This allows them to self correct in a far more efficient way than a listen-once-and-repeat method does.
Not only that, but often sadly most non-input methods tend to study phonetics in isolation, and not often how they combine together to make sentences.
The phonetics of a language involve far more than the individual consonant and vowel sounds. There is also syllabic stress (think of "REcord" and "to reCORD"), word liasons ("it's not" or "it snot"?), dropped vowels/syllables ("watchya doin?"), suprasegmental stress ("did YOU drink the milk?" or "did you DRINK the milk?"), emotional tone and formal tone, among other things.
These are all extremely involved and would be rather complex if studied in separate segments while trying to remember a rule for all of them. But they are present in natural speech, all happening at once. As such, the same input can be used many different ways to study the language from a different perspective.
Grammar
From a modern language learning perspective, this is considered the foundation of learning. It is usually the first thing you learn as it can be used to create comprehensible sentences straight away.
The problem with this is that often this can be so complex that it takes the main focus of the student away from comprehension of the language and the student starts to think of language in a mechanical fashion. Some grammar can be simple and can be practiced enough that it can become automatic. But there are some grammar forms that are context specific or difficult to explain in an explicit format. Sometimes they are classed as expressions, but the line is not always so clear. For example, "What's up with Matt?" may be considered an expression but "What is the problem with Matt?" may be considered a standard form of grammar, even though they are both interrogatives.
In addition, grammar cannot be separated from context. In the example above, "What's up?" is an informal expression inappropriate for some uses. If you learn this in a textbook it might not be clear. But with input, when this is viewed as only being used among friends or in casual situations, the person can intuit that this is an informal expression.
While learning grammar by rules can be useful, I believe it is best used to refine knowledge already present, like a native speaking child does when they go to primary school and beyond.
But even amongst native speakers, the strongest determinant of good spelling and grammar usage is how much the person reads. In other words, input.
Vocabulary
Lastly vocabulary is best learned by input when possible. A person can learn vocabulary through studying lists, through flashcards, picture cards, or through natural input.
Through viewing conversations in real life or even from TV or the like, the person has more senses engaged in which to remember vocabulary. Some people are visually focused, some auditory and some tactile. By giving the person something to look at, hear, and touch if possible it allows them to use the input method that is strongest for them. And by providing the context of the situation and supporting conversation it adds additional information (like when to use "ass" or "butt"; or "boat" or "ship").
What is the weak point of the input argument?
For language acquisition purposes, the language needs to be as comprehensible as possible, especially at early stages. As the guy that taught me TESOL said, "don't explain, demonstrate". It is not always very easy to find input like this, and it can be hard to convince native speakers to teach like this (with methods like TPR for example).
The debate is multifaceted and there are many justifications on both sides. Ultimately though, but input and output need to be thoroughly practiced. As a language learner what you need to make sure is that in the long term you are balancing input and output. Then focus first on what seems to work best for you.
That is, they either strongly believe that a learner should maximize their output, or maximize their input in order to best start learning a language.
I fall into the input camp. I believe it's important to maximize input as much as possible in the first 6 months to 1 year before the learner starts to focus on output. Without having prior experience with the language, then when it comes to production the learner has no reference to draw on to form utterances.
Often, rules just don't cut it.
I present my arguments for each of the four main components of language.
Pragmatics
This is the process of connecting language with context. In such a way something like "whatever" can have different meanings depending on the context of which it is used (such as declaring your indifference, or indicating that you want a person to shutup).
This is almost impossible to learn except by exposure to real life situations, or through TV shows and other video input. Most supporters of output place this kind of learning as a final stage. I suggest starting exposure to this kind of input from day one. Many complex sentences will not be understood at first, but simple ones can be picked up fairly quickly. For example, in 50 hours of Chinese exposure I've learned 2 ways of saying "let's go" depending on urgency and the verb "to go" which is different.
I feel that with enough exposure, this creates a link with certain phonetic patterns and situations (like identifying levels of formality by phonetics, describing an academic subject compared to describing a sport, etc).
Phonetics
The output argument generally tends towards a listen-and-practice approach. The idea being that phonetic sounds need to be practiced over and over again until the vocal chords and mouth learn to make the sounds required in the new language.
What inputters believe, and as my experience has shown, having a good level of input creates an instinct for the correct sounds of the language they are learning. It also gives them time to tune their ear to the phonetics, refining their ability to hear nuances in the sounds. This allows them to self correct in a far more efficient way than a listen-once-and-repeat method does.
Not only that, but often sadly most non-input methods tend to study phonetics in isolation, and not often how they combine together to make sentences.
The phonetics of a language involve far more than the individual consonant and vowel sounds. There is also syllabic stress (think of "REcord" and "to reCORD"), word liasons ("it's not" or "it snot"?), dropped vowels/syllables ("watchya doin?"), suprasegmental stress ("did YOU drink the milk?" or "did you DRINK the milk?"), emotional tone and formal tone, among other things.
These are all extremely involved and would be rather complex if studied in separate segments while trying to remember a rule for all of them. But they are present in natural speech, all happening at once. As such, the same input can be used many different ways to study the language from a different perspective.
Grammar
From a modern language learning perspective, this is considered the foundation of learning. It is usually the first thing you learn as it can be used to create comprehensible sentences straight away.
The problem with this is that often this can be so complex that it takes the main focus of the student away from comprehension of the language and the student starts to think of language in a mechanical fashion. Some grammar can be simple and can be practiced enough that it can become automatic. But there are some grammar forms that are context specific or difficult to explain in an explicit format. Sometimes they are classed as expressions, but the line is not always so clear. For example, "What's up with Matt?" may be considered an expression but "What is the problem with Matt?" may be considered a standard form of grammar, even though they are both interrogatives.
In addition, grammar cannot be separated from context. In the example above, "What's up?" is an informal expression inappropriate for some uses. If you learn this in a textbook it might not be clear. But with input, when this is viewed as only being used among friends or in casual situations, the person can intuit that this is an informal expression.
While learning grammar by rules can be useful, I believe it is best used to refine knowledge already present, like a native speaking child does when they go to primary school and beyond.
But even amongst native speakers, the strongest determinant of good spelling and grammar usage is how much the person reads. In other words, input.
Vocabulary
Lastly vocabulary is best learned by input when possible. A person can learn vocabulary through studying lists, through flashcards, picture cards, or through natural input.
Through viewing conversations in real life or even from TV or the like, the person has more senses engaged in which to remember vocabulary. Some people are visually focused, some auditory and some tactile. By giving the person something to look at, hear, and touch if possible it allows them to use the input method that is strongest for them. And by providing the context of the situation and supporting conversation it adds additional information (like when to use "ass" or "butt"; or "boat" or "ship").
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the weak point of the input argument?
For language acquisition purposes, the language needs to be as comprehensible as possible, especially at early stages. As the guy that taught me TESOL said, "don't explain, demonstrate". It is not always very easy to find input like this, and it can be hard to convince native speakers to teach like this (with methods like TPR for example).
The debate is multifaceted and there are many justifications on both sides. Ultimately though, but input and output need to be thoroughly practiced. As a language learner what you need to make sure is that in the long term you are balancing input and output. Then focus first on what seems to work best for you.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Redefining wisdom and how Vipassana creates wisdom
Vipassana cultivates wisdom. But to better understand what this means, we need to create a specific definition for wisdom.
Wisdom is often defined as the knowledge of what is "true" or "right". These are terms I find heavily loaded and highly open to interpretation. I want to offer an alternate definition.
In business, knowledge management is a new popular buzzword. Under the theory of knowledge management, they offer definitions for data, information, and knowledge:
Data is the raw facts, statistics, ratings and outcomes that can be known.
Information is the organizing of data into meaningful groups, such as databases, text collections (like this blog) and the like. It is an understanding of the relations between data.
Knowledge is the grouping and application of information to context, such as rules, procedures, skills, and the like. It is an understanding of the patterns of information and how they can be best used in a specific context.
To continue with the same line of reasoning, here is my definition for wisdom.
Wisdom is the prioritization of knowledge. It is "knowing" what skills and rules are more important than others. It is achieved through understanding patterns.
By changing what information we filter in and filter out, and how we weight that information, we become exposed to a range of patterns we would not otherwise. It is in this way we start to expand our wisdom, and focus on what is truly important for us.
This definition of wisdom is important. Modern society is very focused on the acquisition of knowledge. We are very concerned with gaining skills. But we spend little time questioning how important the skills we are learning are.
Adopting a "more of anything is better" approach is not good for us. We only have limited time and effort with which to learn skills in the world, so we should focus on what is most important.
The time spent on increasing awareness of what is important for us is an investment worth spending.
Our minds gravitate towards recognizing patterns. It is something we are all masters of, whether educated or not. And it has been the envy of the computing world since the technology was first created.
As mentioned in an earlier post, Vipassana alters our filtering and weighting. In short, it expands how much sensory input we are aware of, and changes our priorities for this information. We become aware of more patterns in life as we encounter new information and processes, and we link up similarities.
As a result of all this, we start to become aware of what moves ourselves and other people most deeply. We start to realize what is most important by what creates the most positive, deepest and long lasting effects.
If we come in touch with something that sounds wise to us, we describe it as profound, or moving. But we usually don't understand where it comes from.
It is not the result of a special mind, and every person is capable of achieving deep levels of wisdom. What is required is a willingness to confront our own assumptions, and the persistence to do so for many years.
Wisdom is often defined as the knowledge of what is "true" or "right". These are terms I find heavily loaded and highly open to interpretation. I want to offer an alternate definition.
In business, knowledge management is a new popular buzzword. Under the theory of knowledge management, they offer definitions for data, information, and knowledge:
Data is the raw facts, statistics, ratings and outcomes that can be known.
Information is the organizing of data into meaningful groups, such as databases, text collections (like this blog) and the like. It is an understanding of the relations between data.
Knowledge is the grouping and application of information to context, such as rules, procedures, skills, and the like. It is an understanding of the patterns of information and how they can be best used in a specific context.
To continue with the same line of reasoning, here is my definition for wisdom.
Wisdom is the prioritization of knowledge. It is "knowing" what skills and rules are more important than others. It is achieved through understanding patterns.
By changing what information we filter in and filter out, and how we weight that information, we become exposed to a range of patterns we would not otherwise. It is in this way we start to expand our wisdom, and focus on what is truly important for us.
This definition of wisdom is important. Modern society is very focused on the acquisition of knowledge. We are very concerned with gaining skills. But we spend little time questioning how important the skills we are learning are.
Adopting a "more of anything is better" approach is not good for us. We only have limited time and effort with which to learn skills in the world, so we should focus on what is most important.
The time spent on increasing awareness of what is important for us is an investment worth spending.
Our minds gravitate towards recognizing patterns. It is something we are all masters of, whether educated or not. And it has been the envy of the computing world since the technology was first created.
As mentioned in an earlier post, Vipassana alters our filtering and weighting. In short, it expands how much sensory input we are aware of, and changes our priorities for this information. We become aware of more patterns in life as we encounter new information and processes, and we link up similarities.
As a result of all this, we start to become aware of what moves ourselves and other people most deeply. We start to realize what is most important by what creates the most positive, deepest and long lasting effects.
If we come in touch with something that sounds wise to us, we describe it as profound, or moving. But we usually don't understand where it comes from.
It is not the result of a special mind, and every person is capable of achieving deep levels of wisdom. What is required is a willingness to confront our own assumptions, and the persistence to do so for many years.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Greater fear theory
Sometimes people need a push.
Even when we are in a life situation that's far from ideal, it can grow comfortable, and we become scared of change.
What did if for me was the death of my mother. When I was 23 she passed on, and it left me deeply questioning the purpose of my life. I imagined a list of all the things I wanted to do before I die. I used to imagine myself on my death bed reviewing my life. Up to that point, I felt I had done nothing I had wanted to do with my life.
And it scared me.
I was scared of change also. At that time I had a job that I didn't feel aligned with. But it was a monthly pay packet and I knew everyone. It was comfortable.
But the fear of that image, of having died before I had "lived" was what pushed me into my new life. Since that date in April 2004, here's what I have done with my life:
Although all the changes have made my life at times more difficult, I don't regret having done any of these things in the slightest. In fact my life is more rewarding than it has ever been. I can imagine that old man on his death bed, and already he can think back on this life with joy, satisfied and proud with what he has done.
But I might not have had this life if it wasn't for the push. Which started me thinking about what I call Greater Fear Theory.
Greater Fear Theory is the idea that to overcome great resistance to change, the fear of the status quo needs to be greater than the fear of change.
For me, the idea of living an unhappy life with a huge mass of unfulfilled dreams was much scarier to me than the fear of the uncertainty of that change in my life.
If you're unhappy with your life but are scared to change, perhaps this can be used for you. From my experience, greater fear theory needs three things:
In an ideal world, we may not need to be motivated by our fears. But often the hardest part about change is breaking the old habit, and starting the new. If you're having difficulty with that, perhaps this can help you as it helped me.
Even when we are in a life situation that's far from ideal, it can grow comfortable, and we become scared of change.
What did if for me was the death of my mother. When I was 23 she passed on, and it left me deeply questioning the purpose of my life. I imagined a list of all the things I wanted to do before I die. I used to imagine myself on my death bed reviewing my life. Up to that point, I felt I had done nothing I had wanted to do with my life.
And it scared me.
I was scared of change also. At that time I had a job that I didn't feel aligned with. But it was a monthly pay packet and I knew everyone. It was comfortable.
But the fear of that image, of having died before I had "lived" was what pushed me into my new life. Since that date in April 2004, here's what I have done with my life:
- Got out of a mortgage I had been in since 19
- Studied kinesiology, massage, myofascial release and craniosacral therapy
- Worked in a travel agency
- Spent a year traveling to North America, Europe and Asia
- Taught English
- Gained fluency in French
- Moved to Thailand and started a business degree
- Lost hair and gained wisdom
Although all the changes have made my life at times more difficult, I don't regret having done any of these things in the slightest. In fact my life is more rewarding than it has ever been. I can imagine that old man on his death bed, and already he can think back on this life with joy, satisfied and proud with what he has done.
But I might not have had this life if it wasn't for the push. Which started me thinking about what I call Greater Fear Theory.
Greater Fear Theory is the idea that to overcome great resistance to change, the fear of the status quo needs to be greater than the fear of change.
For me, the idea of living an unhappy life with a huge mass of unfulfilled dreams was much scarier to me than the fear of the uncertainty of that change in my life.
If you're unhappy with your life but are scared to change, perhaps this can be used for you. From my experience, greater fear theory needs three things:
- Something fearful about you current situation needs to be found
- This fear needs to be real and vivid
- This fear needs to be immediate, or happening now
In an ideal world, we may not need to be motivated by our fears. But often the hardest part about change is breaking the old habit, and starting the new. If you're having difficulty with that, perhaps this can help you as it helped me.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Chinese language experiment: 50 hours
Well, I finally did it.
I'm at 50 hours of listening practice.
A few events have happened in the time I logged 20 hours of listening, so I best explain what those are.
1/ I started university again 4 weeks ago. Because I've been busy with other things, I've not had the time and energy to devote to listening practice that I had before.
2/ I've started learning to read Chinese independently. I am focusing on learning the meaning independent of sound, however since most Chinese TV runs Chinese subtitles at the bottom, occasionally a word pops up that I recognize and this helps with learning.
3/ I started taking a Chinese class in university. However this is not a very big impact. The class is an example of what not to do in teaching language. Most of the class is given to explanations of where to put the tongue in the mouth to make a certain sound or repeating a sound as the teacher frantically rushes between 30 students to tell us if we are making the sound correctly. In four weeks I have learned only 20 words and 4 sentences. And in those 4 weeks I estimate that I have heard Chinese spoken in class for approximately 5 minutes.
So, lets have a look at my progress.
Here you can see a cumulative graph of my comprehension, hour by hour. You can see while it was volatile before, my estimates have plateaued out at about 15%. I don't expect these estimates to be extremely accurate until I reach higher percentages, but I will track them over time in any case.
As you can see, my comprehension for news, reportages and documentaries have gone up. This is largely due to the fact that these are what I've been listening to. I haven't been watching many entertainment shows, especially as they contain a lot of singing generally, and they aren't too helpful for my purposes.
The other category that stands out is dramas, which have actually gone down. I think I overestimated my comprehension earlier, and I want to be more conservative with my estimates.
That being said, I definitely have noticed a difference in my listening skills. It doesn't take much concentration at all to hear words clearly any more. And even when I don't know what they mean (which is most of the time), I can generally hear it and recreate it later on. I'm sure my pronunciation isn't perfect, but I feel that I can self correct to a pretty decent level.
I feel that this is an important skill that is mostly taken care of. I had estimated to have a good ear after 100 hours of listening, but it has come earlier than expected. Of course this is only the base and will need refining, but what this means is that I can now put my mental effort into understanding word order and connecting words with context in the storylines.
I will keep up with the listening, albeit it a slower pace. I will report back at 100 hours.
I'm at 50 hours of listening practice.
A few events have happened in the time I logged 20 hours of listening, so I best explain what those are.
1/ I started university again 4 weeks ago. Because I've been busy with other things, I've not had the time and energy to devote to listening practice that I had before.
2/ I've started learning to read Chinese independently. I am focusing on learning the meaning independent of sound, however since most Chinese TV runs Chinese subtitles at the bottom, occasionally a word pops up that I recognize and this helps with learning.
3/ I started taking a Chinese class in university. However this is not a very big impact. The class is an example of what not to do in teaching language. Most of the class is given to explanations of where to put the tongue in the mouth to make a certain sound or repeating a sound as the teacher frantically rushes between 30 students to tell us if we are making the sound correctly. In four weeks I have learned only 20 words and 4 sentences. And in those 4 weeks I estimate that I have heard Chinese spoken in class for approximately 5 minutes.
So, lets have a look at my progress.
Here you can see a cumulative graph of my comprehension, hour by hour. You can see while it was volatile before, my estimates have plateaued out at about 15%. I don't expect these estimates to be extremely accurate until I reach higher percentages, but I will track them over time in any case.
As you can see, my comprehension for news, reportages and documentaries have gone up. This is largely due to the fact that these are what I've been listening to. I haven't been watching many entertainment shows, especially as they contain a lot of singing generally, and they aren't too helpful for my purposes.
The other category that stands out is dramas, which have actually gone down. I think I overestimated my comprehension earlier, and I want to be more conservative with my estimates.
That being said, I definitely have noticed a difference in my listening skills. It doesn't take much concentration at all to hear words clearly any more. And even when I don't know what they mean (which is most of the time), I can generally hear it and recreate it later on. I'm sure my pronunciation isn't perfect, but I feel that I can self correct to a pretty decent level.
I feel that this is an important skill that is mostly taken care of. I had estimated to have a good ear after 100 hours of listening, but it has come earlier than expected. Of course this is only the base and will need refining, but what this means is that I can now put my mental effort into understanding word order and connecting words with context in the storylines.
I will keep up with the listening, albeit it a slower pace. I will report back at 100 hours.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Information dependency: a modern scourge
Sir Ken Robinson often talks about the modern school system killing creativity, and why creativity is so vital for our societies, as vital as literacy. I have some theories why.
Obviously, creativity is important for innovation and to adapt and change to different environments, but I believe it goes much deeper than that.
An important issue that I feel is not being talked about enough is how we train people to be dependent on others for information.
Information dependency is the habit of always looking to others for information. It is the habit and belief that if we can't find someone knowledgeable, we can't learn anything.
One of the biggest obstacles to a person achieving their dreams is a lack of belief in themselves.
If you think about how education methods transmit information to students, it almost always relies on the student being passive and following orders.
This trains people to be passive in life. I'm not saying that a passive method of learning is never appropriate, but there needs to be balance between a passive approach and an active one.
Self-learning is not just an idea, but is a skill that needs to be strengthened with practice. To encourage children to be curious and help them improve their ability to find out what they need teaches them so many things. It teaches them that curiosity can be good and helpful. It teaches them that if they don't like something about themselves, they can change it. And it teaches them how.
Most educational methods set the teacher up as the boss who cannot be questioned, who gives rules that cannot be deviated from. If this is all children are exposed to for 12-13 years of their life, imagine how this can lead to a passive approach in life.
This passive approach explains how people will look to someone else to "save" them or to "make things better". It leads to people complaining about things they don't like, but not look for solutions to change them. It erodes hope that we can change many things in our life and in ourselves. It can be a source of dissatisfaction with our lives. And it can hide the fact from us that life can be a wonderful laboratory to explore our life passions and a place to experience joy.
Of course education is not the only factor. But something that a child spends 12 or more years of their life in is going to have a huge impact on them. We need to look elsewhere to break these habits. But we shouldn't have to.
As Sir Ken Robinson states, we need to shift from an industrial model of education, to an agricultural model. That is, we need to focus on providing the right environment for learning without controlling too strongly the output that is created.
Because for us to measure who will be successful in life or not is extremely arrogant and prone to damaging errors. Society depends on a huge diversity of talents to thrive, and we can't predict what all those talents will be 12 years from now.
Obviously, creativity is important for innovation and to adapt and change to different environments, but I believe it goes much deeper than that.
An important issue that I feel is not being talked about enough is how we train people to be dependent on others for information.
Information dependency is the habit of always looking to others for information. It is the habit and belief that if we can't find someone knowledgeable, we can't learn anything.
One of the biggest obstacles to a person achieving their dreams is a lack of belief in themselves.
If you think about how education methods transmit information to students, it almost always relies on the student being passive and following orders.
This trains people to be passive in life. I'm not saying that a passive method of learning is never appropriate, but there needs to be balance between a passive approach and an active one.
Self-learning is not just an idea, but is a skill that needs to be strengthened with practice. To encourage children to be curious and help them improve their ability to find out what they need teaches them so many things. It teaches them that curiosity can be good and helpful. It teaches them that if they don't like something about themselves, they can change it. And it teaches them how.
Most educational methods set the teacher up as the boss who cannot be questioned, who gives rules that cannot be deviated from. If this is all children are exposed to for 12-13 years of their life, imagine how this can lead to a passive approach in life.
This passive approach explains how people will look to someone else to "save" them or to "make things better". It leads to people complaining about things they don't like, but not look for solutions to change them. It erodes hope that we can change many things in our life and in ourselves. It can be a source of dissatisfaction with our lives. And it can hide the fact from us that life can be a wonderful laboratory to explore our life passions and a place to experience joy.
Of course education is not the only factor. But something that a child spends 12 or more years of their life in is going to have a huge impact on them. We need to look elsewhere to break these habits. But we shouldn't have to.
As Sir Ken Robinson states, we need to shift from an industrial model of education, to an agricultural model. That is, we need to focus on providing the right environment for learning without controlling too strongly the output that is created.
Because for us to measure who will be successful in life or not is extremely arrogant and prone to damaging errors. Society depends on a huge diversity of talents to thrive, and we can't predict what all those talents will be 12 years from now.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The comparative advantage and your life
An economist in the late 18th century called David Ricardo was dealing with a dilemma.
The esteemed Adam Smith, father of economics had created the theory of absolute advantage. Basically, if you can make something cheaper than anyone else, you should, and then export it.
There was a fatal flaw in the theory. What if one country was better at producing everything than another country? Should that country produce and trade all the worlds goods? Should the lesser country produce and trade nothing?
His answer took form in the theory of comparative advantage:
Here are two countries with some fictional numbers, Malaysia and Thailand. The lines show a simplified version of what the country could produce if it uses all its resources to produce palm oil or automobiles.
Here, if Malaysia directed 100% of its economy into palm oil production, it could make $100 million, or if into Automobiles, only $50 million. We can say this is because the people have better training and knowledge in palm oil production, the climate is better suited to agricultural work than industrial, favorable business policies, or a number of reasons that affect productivity.
Being a bigger country with more natural resources, in our example Thailand can make $105 million in palm oil production or $120 million in automobile production.
In this example, Thailand has absolute advantage in both. But there is no point in Malaysians sitting idle and not making anything. So comparative advantage explains that Thailand is still better off making cars and Malaysia is still better off making palm oil.
In our own life, we sometimes think that other people are better at everything than us. We get tempted to not even try. But just like Malaysia there, we need to stop comparing ourselves to others, even if they have the absolute advantage. We should look at our comparative advantage, what we do better than other things.
Here's Mary and Tom. Mary and Tom both dream of being wealthy.
Mary is a bookish person who loves using mathematics to solve problems. She knows that if she studies hard and gets a good degree, she can get a job in a finance firm paying $100,000 a year. She is not very risk taking or entrepreneurial. She could start her own accounting firm but will probably not make a lot of money from it ($50K).
Tom is one of the lucky people that seem to have academic skills and practical street smarts. He also knows he can study, get his degree and get the job Mary is going for but with a $5k a year raise. But he has a great idea for his own finance firm, and is convinced he can make more money doing this ($120K).
In this example Mary might be jealous of Tom. But it really doesn't matter. In any case, Mary will still make more money with her studies and job in a big firm than she would starting her own business. Likewise Tom will start his business.
As I've said time and again, Economics is a science of choice. Here is another example. It shows how we can get the most benefit by looking at what we do better than other things, not other people. In fact the science shows how everyone gains by all individuals seeking what they do best, their comparative advantage. And it tells us that comparing ourselves to others isn't important to realize the best gains in our life.
And as a final note, we of course have to recognize that money is not the only motivator to our lives. But whatever provides an incentive for us can be used the same way.
Here is one final graph. Is money or enjoyment more important? I'll leave you to decide what you think Tom and Mary should do with their life.
The esteemed Adam Smith, father of economics had created the theory of absolute advantage. Basically, if you can make something cheaper than anyone else, you should, and then export it.
There was a fatal flaw in the theory. What if one country was better at producing everything than another country? Should that country produce and trade all the worlds goods? Should the lesser country produce and trade nothing?
His answer took form in the theory of comparative advantage:
Here are two countries with some fictional numbers, Malaysia and Thailand. The lines show a simplified version of what the country could produce if it uses all its resources to produce palm oil or automobiles.
Here, if Malaysia directed 100% of its economy into palm oil production, it could make $100 million, or if into Automobiles, only $50 million. We can say this is because the people have better training and knowledge in palm oil production, the climate is better suited to agricultural work than industrial, favorable business policies, or a number of reasons that affect productivity.
Being a bigger country with more natural resources, in our example Thailand can make $105 million in palm oil production or $120 million in automobile production.
In this example, Thailand has absolute advantage in both. But there is no point in Malaysians sitting idle and not making anything. So comparative advantage explains that Thailand is still better off making cars and Malaysia is still better off making palm oil.
In our own life, we sometimes think that other people are better at everything than us. We get tempted to not even try. But just like Malaysia there, we need to stop comparing ourselves to others, even if they have the absolute advantage. We should look at our comparative advantage, what we do better than other things.
Here's Mary and Tom. Mary and Tom both dream of being wealthy.
Mary is a bookish person who loves using mathematics to solve problems. She knows that if she studies hard and gets a good degree, she can get a job in a finance firm paying $100,000 a year. She is not very risk taking or entrepreneurial. She could start her own accounting firm but will probably not make a lot of money from it ($50K).
Tom is one of the lucky people that seem to have academic skills and practical street smarts. He also knows he can study, get his degree and get the job Mary is going for but with a $5k a year raise. But he has a great idea for his own finance firm, and is convinced he can make more money doing this ($120K).
In this example Mary might be jealous of Tom. But it really doesn't matter. In any case, Mary will still make more money with her studies and job in a big firm than she would starting her own business. Likewise Tom will start his business.
As I've said time and again, Economics is a science of choice. Here is another example. It shows how we can get the most benefit by looking at what we do better than other things, not other people. In fact the science shows how everyone gains by all individuals seeking what they do best, their comparative advantage. And it tells us that comparing ourselves to others isn't important to realize the best gains in our life.
And as a final note, we of course have to recognize that money is not the only motivator to our lives. But whatever provides an incentive for us can be used the same way.
Here is one final graph. Is money or enjoyment more important? I'll leave you to decide what you think Tom and Mary should do with their life.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Language is a sport, not a subject
In 2009 researcher Victor Ferreira conducted study showing that people form sentences with procedural memory.
To understand how big a deal this is, I have to explain some things first.
Procedural memory(n).
Also called implicit memory. Guides the processes we perform and most frequently resides below the level of conscious awareness. Retrieved and utilized for the execution of the integrated procedures involved in both cognitive and motor skills; from tying shoes to flying an airplane to reading. Accessed and used without the need for conscious control or attention. It is created through "procedural learning" or, repeating a complex activity over and over again until we figure out how to make all of the relevant neural systems work together to automatically produce the activity.
This study (among others) suggest that learning a language is like learning to tie your shoes, or to ride a bike. For anyone who's been in a language class before, does this sound like a typical class to you? If it does, tell me where you're learning. I'd like to speak to the teacher.
Most classes use a declarative or explicit approach to language teaching, at least in the early levels, and they usually never leave this approach.
Declarative memory(n).
Also called explicit memory. One of two types of long term human memory. Memories which can be consciously recalled such as facts and events. Declarative memory can be divided into two categories: episodic memory which stores specific personal experiences and semantic memory which stores factual information.
Ah, this sounds like language study! In language classes we can easily recall the drudgery of memorizing vocabulary lists and doing grammar exercises. The formula of A + B = Z. If we remember enough formulas, we can figure it out. The only reason it hasn't worked yet, we think, is because we haven't worked hard enough.
Except that the approach just doesn't work.
Memorization of rules follow a declarative path which can give a simulation of fluency up to a point. But it will never produce mastery. A native speaker learns through an implicit approach, and unless you do too, you are literally speaking a different language.
Victor Ferreira's study is one of a few I've seen about teaching syntax and grammar rules at subjects suffering from amnesia or Alzheimer's. Like his study, it is shown that people can remember how to construct sentence patterns even when they cannot explain how the rule works, or even that they had learned it.
If we think about our native language, we do the same. Most of us can't give explicit reasons for applying certain sentence structures, but we can do it continuously without error.
This shows that we use a different neural mechanism for learning languages than we do for learning academic subjects like science. Yet we continue to teach it as if it were an academic subject.
Why?
The assumption that adults cannot learn in a similar way to children is based on studies that compare explicit approaches with adults to implicit approaches to children. It's comparing oranges and apples. If more of Victors kind of studies continue, I hope there will be enough scientific evidence to appease the academic community that language learning should be trained like a sport, rather than an academic subject.
To understand how big a deal this is, I have to explain some things first.
Procedural memory(n).
Also called implicit memory. Guides the processes we perform and most frequently resides below the level of conscious awareness. Retrieved and utilized for the execution of the integrated procedures involved in both cognitive and motor skills; from tying shoes to flying an airplane to reading. Accessed and used without the need for conscious control or attention. It is created through "procedural learning" or, repeating a complex activity over and over again until we figure out how to make all of the relevant neural systems work together to automatically produce the activity.
This study (among others) suggest that learning a language is like learning to tie your shoes, or to ride a bike. For anyone who's been in a language class before, does this sound like a typical class to you? If it does, tell me where you're learning. I'd like to speak to the teacher.
Most classes use a declarative or explicit approach to language teaching, at least in the early levels, and they usually never leave this approach.
Declarative memory(n).
Also called explicit memory. One of two types of long term human memory. Memories which can be consciously recalled such as facts and events. Declarative memory can be divided into two categories: episodic memory which stores specific personal experiences and semantic memory which stores factual information.
Ah, this sounds like language study! In language classes we can easily recall the drudgery of memorizing vocabulary lists and doing grammar exercises. The formula of A + B = Z. If we remember enough formulas, we can figure it out. The only reason it hasn't worked yet, we think, is because we haven't worked hard enough.
Except that the approach just doesn't work.
Memorization of rules follow a declarative path which can give a simulation of fluency up to a point. But it will never produce mastery. A native speaker learns through an implicit approach, and unless you do too, you are literally speaking a different language.
Victor Ferreira's study is one of a few I've seen about teaching syntax and grammar rules at subjects suffering from amnesia or Alzheimer's. Like his study, it is shown that people can remember how to construct sentence patterns even when they cannot explain how the rule works, or even that they had learned it.
If we think about our native language, we do the same. Most of us can't give explicit reasons for applying certain sentence structures, but we can do it continuously without error.
This shows that we use a different neural mechanism for learning languages than we do for learning academic subjects like science. Yet we continue to teach it as if it were an academic subject.
Why?
The assumption that adults cannot learn in a similar way to children is based on studies that compare explicit approaches with adults to implicit approaches to children. It's comparing oranges and apples. If more of Victors kind of studies continue, I hope there will be enough scientific evidence to appease the academic community that language learning should be trained like a sport, rather than an academic subject.
Friday, June 24, 2011
How to meditate: Metta or Loving-Kindness meditation
One of the three cornerstones of Vipassana meditation is the metta technique. It is one I have put off in my own practice.
In essence, the ultimate purpose of the technique is to generate a feeling of metta, or loving-kindness towards everyone and everything.
Also called compassion, There are many methods of practicing the technique, but they usually follow a system something like this:
It is necessary to begin with a calm mind (metta is usually practiced after concentration or Vipassana)
Then we cultivate the intention of wishing happiness.
We first wish happiness to ourself, that we may be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Secondly we wish happiness to a good friend, or someone close to us, that they be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Thirdly we wish happiness to someone we feel neutral towards, that they be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Fourthly we wish happiness to someone we feel is difficult, an "enemy", that they be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Lastly, we conclude with all things in existence, animate and inanimate, that they all be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
The process does not need to be long, just 10-15 minutes per day.
Both cognitively and emotionally, the practice might seem to not make sense.
We often feel justified in our hatred of certain others, especially if they are destructive people. It takes a lot of wisdom to realize that people do bad things from ignorance and desperation, and that if they were truly happy, they would not need to do the things that they do.
By opposing the behavior, we need to create enemies. By opposing the misery underlying the behavior, we need strong compassion.
The other cognitive block to trying the practice is to wonder why we would want to feel compassion for those we dislike or disagree with, and for inanimate objects.
The purpose of cultivating this intention is first and foremost for us. If we can even be in the presence of an enemy but still feel compassion, we can stay calm and happy. If we feel equal compassion for all people (a long-term aim of the practice), then we can be more objective and fair to the situation, by taking feelings out of the equation. Sometimes we can learn from people we dislike, and even people we dislike can make a good point.
The cultivation of compassion towards all beings and objects as well gives us more respect for the environment we live in. It allows us to develop a healthy relationship with the world around us. For example we learn that money is not in itself evil, but can be used for immoral or moral purposes. We learn that we can be satisfied with our old but clean clothes, instead of needing to buy new ones all the time, creating environmental problems.
It has only been this year that I have started to appreciate the value of this practice, and I have included it more regularly.
One reason is that it has taken me a long time to be happy with myself. Compassion towards ones self is the base, and kindness needs to be directed there, first and foremost.
The hierarchy in the practice above can be used to judge the compassion of any individual.
If the person is unhappy with themselves, they are often unable to even share in the joy of their friends. This is where we see that the most harmful people are often unhappy with the most fundamental aspect of their reality, themselves.
A more compassionate person, may have love for themselves and their friends, but bitterly oppose those they have decided are their enemies. This tribal or team mentality means that differences become the source of conflict, and any benefit from this conflict is given up. Politics is a good example of this, where often arguments are not centered on what policies would be most beneficial, but rather who is "right" or "wrong". A more compassionate society on this level would be more considerate of all opinions, even when it opposes their own. It is at this level that many modern societies are struggling to break through at a collective level.
The last is our relationship to materiality and the environment. If we are still concerned with opposing people, it is often hard to care about "things". As modern societies, we are trying to reevaluate our relationship with the environment so that we don't damage it beyond repair.
As individuals, it is our job to become more compassionate, with whatever technique we choose. Via the moral multiplier, our actions can have effects that extend beyond ourselves. And while we are a small cog in the wheel, it is the collection of all these small cogs moving forward that will take society to where it needs to go.
In essence, the ultimate purpose of the technique is to generate a feeling of metta, or loving-kindness towards everyone and everything.
Also called compassion, There are many methods of practicing the technique, but they usually follow a system something like this:
It is necessary to begin with a calm mind (metta is usually practiced after concentration or Vipassana)
Then we cultivate the intention of wishing happiness.
We first wish happiness to ourself, that we may be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Secondly we wish happiness to a good friend, or someone close to us, that they be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Thirdly we wish happiness to someone we feel neutral towards, that they be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Fourthly we wish happiness to someone we feel is difficult, an "enemy", that they be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
Lastly, we conclude with all things in existence, animate and inanimate, that they all be safe, healthy and free from suffering.
The process does not need to be long, just 10-15 minutes per day.
Both cognitively and emotionally, the practice might seem to not make sense.
We often feel justified in our hatred of certain others, especially if they are destructive people. It takes a lot of wisdom to realize that people do bad things from ignorance and desperation, and that if they were truly happy, they would not need to do the things that they do.
By opposing the behavior, we need to create enemies. By opposing the misery underlying the behavior, we need strong compassion.
The other cognitive block to trying the practice is to wonder why we would want to feel compassion for those we dislike or disagree with, and for inanimate objects.
The purpose of cultivating this intention is first and foremost for us. If we can even be in the presence of an enemy but still feel compassion, we can stay calm and happy. If we feel equal compassion for all people (a long-term aim of the practice), then we can be more objective and fair to the situation, by taking feelings out of the equation. Sometimes we can learn from people we dislike, and even people we dislike can make a good point.
The cultivation of compassion towards all beings and objects as well gives us more respect for the environment we live in. It allows us to develop a healthy relationship with the world around us. For example we learn that money is not in itself evil, but can be used for immoral or moral purposes. We learn that we can be satisfied with our old but clean clothes, instead of needing to buy new ones all the time, creating environmental problems.
It has only been this year that I have started to appreciate the value of this practice, and I have included it more regularly.
One reason is that it has taken me a long time to be happy with myself. Compassion towards ones self is the base, and kindness needs to be directed there, first and foremost.
The hierarchy in the practice above can be used to judge the compassion of any individual.
If the person is unhappy with themselves, they are often unable to even share in the joy of their friends. This is where we see that the most harmful people are often unhappy with the most fundamental aspect of their reality, themselves.
A more compassionate person, may have love for themselves and their friends, but bitterly oppose those they have decided are their enemies. This tribal or team mentality means that differences become the source of conflict, and any benefit from this conflict is given up. Politics is a good example of this, where often arguments are not centered on what policies would be most beneficial, but rather who is "right" or "wrong". A more compassionate society on this level would be more considerate of all opinions, even when it opposes their own. It is at this level that many modern societies are struggling to break through at a collective level.
The last is our relationship to materiality and the environment. If we are still concerned with opposing people, it is often hard to care about "things". As modern societies, we are trying to reevaluate our relationship with the environment so that we don't damage it beyond repair.
As individuals, it is our job to become more compassionate, with whatever technique we choose. Via the moral multiplier, our actions can have effects that extend beyond ourselves. And while we are a small cog in the wheel, it is the collection of all these small cogs moving forward that will take society to where it needs to go.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The rise of Asian universities
Asia is changing fast. That's pretty common knowledge.
People who don't live here or don't focus on the region might not realize how much. The idea for some in the west that the region will one day have the purchasing power of western countries seems inconceivable. But at least the idea is in the minds of most people alive today that the region will be important. And an important part of the regions transition is education.
Each year there is about 3 million students classified as international. About 550,000 or just under 20% of these come from Asia alone. With UNESCO quoting an average growth of 12% of international students globally every year, this number only seems likely to grow.
The most popular destinations have traditionally been English speaking countries such as the US, the UK and Australia and some European countries like Germany. Asian destinations like Singapore and Japan were considered second best options, for those who couldn't afford "better education".
In fact, this view is already old. Many countries in the region are starting to see the need to specialize in knowledge. Korea has education specializing in electronics, graphic design and even video game design, Singapore and Hong Kong are highly focused on finance and business education, and even Thailand is developing a good reputation in Asia for robotics and pharmaceutical research.
As the economies and incomes have been growing in the region, so has the desire to import foreign knowledge in the form of teachers and education systems, giving rise to the Asian international education industry.
Both the US and Australia have been capitalizing on this industry for a long time - classified as a service export, like tourism - which brings in approximately US$20 billion a year for each country. In Australia, it is the 3rd biggest industry by value, below coal and iron ore, but above gold.
Asian countries are seeking to entice these students to their countries with cheaper prices, and a more globalized faculty and student body.
Many countries have set aggressive targets:
For these targets, most countries are targeting other Asian students rather than Americans or Europeans.
One way this is being done is with offshore campuses.
Some American, British, Australian and other European universities are taking the market seriously, creating and operating campuses in Asian locations. Here are just a few:
These universities offer the same accreditation and curriculum as their western counterparts. They gain by accessing an increasing market. The local communities gain by having access to established universities academic experience and reputation.
Part of the reason these big universities are taking the region seriously is that domestic homegrown universities are rapidly improving in quality, prestige and research output.
If one can speak English moderately well, there are competent international programs offered in Thailand, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan and Korea. Perhaps more.
With growing education prices in the west and an increasing importance of Asia in global affairs, we may well one day be sending western kids to Asian universities.
People who don't live here or don't focus on the region might not realize how much. The idea for some in the west that the region will one day have the purchasing power of western countries seems inconceivable. But at least the idea is in the minds of most people alive today that the region will be important. And an important part of the regions transition is education.
Each year there is about 3 million students classified as international. About 550,000 or just under 20% of these come from Asia alone. With UNESCO quoting an average growth of 12% of international students globally every year, this number only seems likely to grow.
The most popular destinations have traditionally been English speaking countries such as the US, the UK and Australia and some European countries like Germany. Asian destinations like Singapore and Japan were considered second best options, for those who couldn't afford "better education".
In fact, this view is already old. Many countries in the region are starting to see the need to specialize in knowledge. Korea has education specializing in electronics, graphic design and even video game design, Singapore and Hong Kong are highly focused on finance and business education, and even Thailand is developing a good reputation in Asia for robotics and pharmaceutical research.
As the economies and incomes have been growing in the region, so has the desire to import foreign knowledge in the form of teachers and education systems, giving rise to the Asian international education industry.
Both the US and Australia have been capitalizing on this industry for a long time - classified as a service export, like tourism - which brings in approximately US$20 billion a year for each country. In Australia, it is the 3rd biggest industry by value, below coal and iron ore, but above gold.
Asian countries are seeking to entice these students to their countries with cheaper prices, and a more globalized faculty and student body.
Many countries have set aggressive targets:
- In 2007 Singapore announced plans to increase its number of international students from 50,000 a year to 150,000 by 2012
- Malaysia has also set a target of 100,000 for 2012
- In the next 5 years, Japan hopes to increase student numbers from 100,000 to 300,000
- Korea has expressed desire to increase international students by 100,000
For these targets, most countries are targeting other Asian students rather than Americans or Europeans.
One way this is being done is with offshore campuses.
Some American, British, Australian and other European universities are taking the market seriously, creating and operating campuses in Asian locations. Here are just a few:
- Webster University operating in Thailand
- Monash University in Malaysia
- University of Wales et al in Singapore
- John Hopkins University in China
These universities offer the same accreditation and curriculum as their western counterparts. They gain by accessing an increasing market. The local communities gain by having access to established universities academic experience and reputation.
Part of the reason these big universities are taking the region seriously is that domestic homegrown universities are rapidly improving in quality, prestige and research output.
If one can speak English moderately well, there are competent international programs offered in Thailand, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan and Korea. Perhaps more.
With growing education prices in the west and an increasing importance of Asia in global affairs, we may well one day be sending western kids to Asian universities.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
What's your learning style?
This is probably one of the lest revolutionary posts I'll write in my learning systems entry of this blog, but it seems sometimes as if was.
Educators have known for a long time that students learn in different methods.
The three main kinds are visual, auditory, and tactile, or kinesthetic.
Visual learners learn best through seeing diagrams, mindmaps, videos pictures and the like.
Auditory learners learn best through hearing lectures, podcasts, and discussing.
Tactile learners learn best through action, doing experiments and exercises.
A person can be a combination of all of these, however 1 style (sometimes 2 styles) tends to be dominant and preferred for that student.
It is reasonable to assume that a mixture of these three learning styles will be present in all classes. It would be a reasonable assumption that most professors should provide material in a way that accompanies all learning styles.
But most don't.
If we recall our time in formal education, we often think about listening to someone talk for an hour or two upfront with some bullet points on screen (or black/white board) while we struggle not to fall asleep.
I'm a dominant visual/tactile learner. I get bored and start day dreaming to escape a lecture like that. Instead, I'll go home, try to create diagrams or charts or someway to visualize the knowledge I need, and I'll do a few exercises. And this way, I get A's. But my time spent in lectures like the above are almost completely wasted.
Occasionally I'll get a teacher who creates visuals or thinks up interactive exercises to do. Often my attention will snap back to reality when there is something visual to work with on screen. Unfortunately, it's quite rare.
For some reason, we have the idea that complex subjects can only be explained through large chunks of technical text. While that might work for some learners, it disadvantages the rest of us.
I've used this graph a couple of times in the economics section of this blog, and I will use it again several times.
Even though I have omitted most of the detail and technical information from this graph, it can still be used to explain a variety of concepts, such as opportunity cost, production capacity, excess and surplus, consumption versus investment, choice of investment, etc.
Not only does it apply on a country (macro), or industry (micro) level, it also applies on a personal level, which I try to bring it down to in my posts there.
The point is, that visuals can often be just as capable as explaining concepts as text.
Exercises in addition to benefiting tactile learners also provide a link from theoretical to practical. For me, I often don't feel like knowledge is cemented in my long term memory until I have practiced it a few times (such as conducting a strategic analysis report of a business).
Regardless of a students inclinations, it is not hard to argue that all three styles should be used in classrooms wherever possible to accompany for all students.
This is not revolutionary, but it is optional. The system allows for this kind of apathy and behalf of professors. The difficulty in implementing something so widely accepted as important in the classroom makes me concerned for the system, and for education.
It is one reason why I feel that in the next few decades we will need to reform the education system from the ground up, into a student-centered system of learning.
Educators have known for a long time that students learn in different methods.
The three main kinds are visual, auditory, and tactile, or kinesthetic.
Visual learners learn best through seeing diagrams, mindmaps, videos pictures and the like.
Auditory learners learn best through hearing lectures, podcasts, and discussing.
Tactile learners learn best through action, doing experiments and exercises.
A person can be a combination of all of these, however 1 style (sometimes 2 styles) tends to be dominant and preferred for that student.
It is reasonable to assume that a mixture of these three learning styles will be present in all classes. It would be a reasonable assumption that most professors should provide material in a way that accompanies all learning styles.
But most don't.
If we recall our time in formal education, we often think about listening to someone talk for an hour or two upfront with some bullet points on screen (or black/white board) while we struggle not to fall asleep.
I'm a dominant visual/tactile learner. I get bored and start day dreaming to escape a lecture like that. Instead, I'll go home, try to create diagrams or charts or someway to visualize the knowledge I need, and I'll do a few exercises. And this way, I get A's. But my time spent in lectures like the above are almost completely wasted.
Occasionally I'll get a teacher who creates visuals or thinks up interactive exercises to do. Often my attention will snap back to reality when there is something visual to work with on screen. Unfortunately, it's quite rare.
For some reason, we have the idea that complex subjects can only be explained through large chunks of technical text. While that might work for some learners, it disadvantages the rest of us.
I've used this graph a couple of times in the economics section of this blog, and I will use it again several times.
Even though I have omitted most of the detail and technical information from this graph, it can still be used to explain a variety of concepts, such as opportunity cost, production capacity, excess and surplus, consumption versus investment, choice of investment, etc.
Not only does it apply on a country (macro), or industry (micro) level, it also applies on a personal level, which I try to bring it down to in my posts there.
The point is, that visuals can often be just as capable as explaining concepts as text.
Exercises in addition to benefiting tactile learners also provide a link from theoretical to practical. For me, I often don't feel like knowledge is cemented in my long term memory until I have practiced it a few times (such as conducting a strategic analysis report of a business).
Regardless of a students inclinations, it is not hard to argue that all three styles should be used in classrooms wherever possible to accompany for all students.
This is not revolutionary, but it is optional. The system allows for this kind of apathy and behalf of professors. The difficulty in implementing something so widely accepted as important in the classroom makes me concerned for the system, and for education.
It is one reason why I feel that in the next few decades we will need to reform the education system from the ground up, into a student-centered system of learning.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
4 capitals, economic, social, cultural, and moral
We all want the best in our lives. Many of us spend large amounts of time thinking about it, planning for it, and trying to achieve it. If we have kids, we start planning for them too.
The economic concept of capital can be defined as "access to resources". When we are trying to improve our lives, we can think of it in economic terms as trying to increase our capital. There are various types:
Economic capital is defined by access to material resources such as cash, oil and the like. Much research has shown that we are usually unhappy if we don't have enough economic capital (in the form of money), but beyond a certain point, more doesn't make us any happier.
Another important type of capital is social capital. We can define our social capital by the number of connections we have to other people and social groups, and the quality of those connections. In the west we call it "networking". In most other parts of the world it's just the standard way of life.
Cultural capital is more loosely defined as the collection of skills, education and knowledge that members of society have.
All these forms of capital are a way of measuring the influence and power an individual has in society. I want to propose another type of capital.
Moral capital is created by our choice of moral actions, actions which are beneficial to society in the long-term.
The power that comes from moral actions is hard to measure, and it is a kind of soft power.
For the individual, increasing moral capital creates an internal sense of wellbeing, self-respect and earned pride of ones actions. It is not about feeling morally superior to others. But just as a person can find enjoyment in having a strong social network without looking down on others, so can a person enjoy the satisfaction that derives from a moral life without contempt for others.
In addition to that, a person who gains a high level of moral capital will earn trust from those that know them. They will have honor and integrity. While the words aren't used so often these days, they are no less important.
Certainly for some people certain types of capital matter more than most. But we will suffer if we have insufficient capital in each of these areas.
Without economic capital, we are poor. This needs no more explanation.
Without social capital, we become lonely and have less opportunities in life.
Without cultural capital, we don't have the necessary skills and knowledge to achieve our dreams. And,
Without moral capital, we can suffer from self-loathing, regret and guilt.
In fact we can learn to live with being poor to some extent. We can adapt to a small social circle if necessary. And in the internet age, we can self-learn virtually any skill we need.
But we cannot escape our own mind.
Moral capital is not a concept that is talked about often, or in clear terms. But it's a vital part of improving our lives. Because if we can make small choices in our life that will lead to a lifetime of regret and not being able to look at ourselves in the mirror, or a lifetime of pride and happiness to be alive, we should seriously be thinking on how to get some more of it.
The economic concept of capital can be defined as "access to resources". When we are trying to improve our lives, we can think of it in economic terms as trying to increase our capital. There are various types:
Economic capital is defined by access to material resources such as cash, oil and the like. Much research has shown that we are usually unhappy if we don't have enough economic capital (in the form of money), but beyond a certain point, more doesn't make us any happier.
Another important type of capital is social capital. We can define our social capital by the number of connections we have to other people and social groups, and the quality of those connections. In the west we call it "networking". In most other parts of the world it's just the standard way of life.
Cultural capital is more loosely defined as the collection of skills, education and knowledge that members of society have.
All these forms of capital are a way of measuring the influence and power an individual has in society. I want to propose another type of capital.
Moral capital is created by our choice of moral actions, actions which are beneficial to society in the long-term.
The power that comes from moral actions is hard to measure, and it is a kind of soft power.
For the individual, increasing moral capital creates an internal sense of wellbeing, self-respect and earned pride of ones actions. It is not about feeling morally superior to others. But just as a person can find enjoyment in having a strong social network without looking down on others, so can a person enjoy the satisfaction that derives from a moral life without contempt for others.
In addition to that, a person who gains a high level of moral capital will earn trust from those that know them. They will have honor and integrity. While the words aren't used so often these days, they are no less important.
Certainly for some people certain types of capital matter more than most. But we will suffer if we have insufficient capital in each of these areas.
Without economic capital, we are poor. This needs no more explanation.
Without social capital, we become lonely and have less opportunities in life.
Without cultural capital, we don't have the necessary skills and knowledge to achieve our dreams. And,
Without moral capital, we can suffer from self-loathing, regret and guilt.
In fact we can learn to live with being poor to some extent. We can adapt to a small social circle if necessary. And in the internet age, we can self-learn virtually any skill we need.
But we cannot escape our own mind.
Moral capital is not a concept that is talked about often, or in clear terms. But it's a vital part of improving our lives. Because if we can make small choices in our life that will lead to a lifetime of regret and not being able to look at ourselves in the mirror, or a lifetime of pride and happiness to be alive, we should seriously be thinking on how to get some more of it.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Language developmental stages
After reading posts about language learning, I have come to a couple of conclusions:
One of the difficulties in a method like ALG is getting people to accept a silent period of 6-12 months before they start speaking in a language. We've been taught it is necessary to focus on production straight away, so classes have been geared to teach explicit rules and provide restricted exercises from the first day so the person feels they are progressing.
While they will gain some ability, it is not a natural progression, and may harm their progress at advanced stages.
The concept of ALG is to produce a methodology as close as possible to how children learn.
Discussions about language have made it clear however that most adults don't know how children learn languages. It seems amazing to me since I assume some of them have had children, and I assume some of those spent enough time noticing their kids learning to speak. These may be dangerous assumptions however.
Many websites such as this one lay out clear linguistic development stages for children. Sometimes they happen sooner or later, but all children go through these stages (except for severe learning disabilities of course).
Let me summarize:
0 to 3 months
Can recognize familiar and unfamiliar voices.
Can use meaningless sounds to convey urgent needs.
4 to 6 months
Can recognize commands with strong emphasis "No!".
Starts practicing with sound production.
7 to 12 months
Begins to recognize simple vocabulary, particularly nouns for objects they can see.
Baby starts producing first words. By this time they usually know between 5 and 20 words or so.
1 to 3 years
Can respond to simple questions ("where's the bunny?") and more detailed commands ("get your socks").
Vocabulary explosion stage. Children pick up words seemingly every day. By the end of this stage they normally know about 1000 words.
3 to 5 years
Fluency stage. By the end of this stage most children are able to understand and express themselves in most language functions about concepts they have learned.
When it comes to language learning, we are often impressed by the speed at which children pick up words at the vocabulary explosion stage, because it's what we see. We fail to acknowledge that for the first year there is virtually no production as the child is exposed to input.
This corresponds remarkably well to the 6-12 month (600-1200 hour) incubation period as experienced in learners of the ALG method.
Of course, babies are processing a lot more information than just language during that time. They have to understand the signals coming from their body, how to use their eyes, to move, to eat, etc. The speed at which they do all this is impressive.
But adults are also far ahead of babies in that regard. They know how to do that stuff already, so they can just focus on the language aspect. They also understand many concepts that are talked about in language already. They don't have to learn them for the first time like a child does. So again they are ahead.
While there is a demonstrated slowdown in neuroplasticity as we age, this research doesn't differentiate between people who have committed to lifelong learning and those who have been neurally sedentary. It also doesn't differentiate between implicit and explicit learning pathways. So the research that is often cited as a reason for why we cannot learn at the same speed as a child is usually not accurate or indicative.
Up to a year of silence may seem to be a large burden for a learner, but considering most people willingly spend 5 or more years learning a second language, the first year of silence is nothing.
All that is required is the faith to try it out, and the persistence to stick it out.
- There are a lot of unexamined assumptions around language learning, and
- There is a lot of ignorance about implicit learning methods in general
One of the difficulties in a method like ALG is getting people to accept a silent period of 6-12 months before they start speaking in a language. We've been taught it is necessary to focus on production straight away, so classes have been geared to teach explicit rules and provide restricted exercises from the first day so the person feels they are progressing.
While they will gain some ability, it is not a natural progression, and may harm their progress at advanced stages.
The concept of ALG is to produce a methodology as close as possible to how children learn.
Discussions about language have made it clear however that most adults don't know how children learn languages. It seems amazing to me since I assume some of them have had children, and I assume some of those spent enough time noticing their kids learning to speak. These may be dangerous assumptions however.
Many websites such as this one lay out clear linguistic development stages for children. Sometimes they happen sooner or later, but all children go through these stages (except for severe learning disabilities of course).
Let me summarize:
0 to 3 months
Can recognize familiar and unfamiliar voices.
Can use meaningless sounds to convey urgent needs.
4 to 6 months
Can recognize commands with strong emphasis "No!".
Starts practicing with sound production.
7 to 12 months
Begins to recognize simple vocabulary, particularly nouns for objects they can see.
Baby starts producing first words. By this time they usually know between 5 and 20 words or so.
1 to 3 years
Can respond to simple questions ("where's the bunny?") and more detailed commands ("get your socks").
Vocabulary explosion stage. Children pick up words seemingly every day. By the end of this stage they normally know about 1000 words.
3 to 5 years
Fluency stage. By the end of this stage most children are able to understand and express themselves in most language functions about concepts they have learned.
When it comes to language learning, we are often impressed by the speed at which children pick up words at the vocabulary explosion stage, because it's what we see. We fail to acknowledge that for the first year there is virtually no production as the child is exposed to input.
This corresponds remarkably well to the 6-12 month (600-1200 hour) incubation period as experienced in learners of the ALG method.
Of course, babies are processing a lot more information than just language during that time. They have to understand the signals coming from their body, how to use their eyes, to move, to eat, etc. The speed at which they do all this is impressive.
But adults are also far ahead of babies in that regard. They know how to do that stuff already, so they can just focus on the language aspect. They also understand many concepts that are talked about in language already. They don't have to learn them for the first time like a child does. So again they are ahead.
While there is a demonstrated slowdown in neuroplasticity as we age, this research doesn't differentiate between people who have committed to lifelong learning and those who have been neurally sedentary. It also doesn't differentiate between implicit and explicit learning pathways. So the research that is often cited as a reason for why we cannot learn at the same speed as a child is usually not accurate or indicative.
Up to a year of silence may seem to be a large burden for a learner, but considering most people willingly spend 5 or more years learning a second language, the first year of silence is nothing.
All that is required is the faith to try it out, and the persistence to stick it out.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
How Vipassana might rewire the brain
There are three main types of meditative practices: Conditioning exercises, concentration exercises, and what I call "deconstructive" exercises.
Conditioning exercises (such as metta meditation), seek to strengthen a neural pathway, often for a feeling. For example, metta meditation seeks to increase a persons feeling of compassion, leading to further happiness for them and creates incentive for their actions to be more moral towards themselves and others.
Concentration exercises are a type of conditioning exercise designed to train a fundamental skill, the ability to focus attention towards one object. They are exercises that strengthen our willpower over our subconscious mind and likely result in a strengthening in the functions of the brain that are involved in attention.
Vipassana, and other deconstructive meditations are harder to describe, and function very differently.
To understand this, it helps to also realize the concept of the neural network.
In my last post on the 3 minds, I mentioned that the network of neurons in our body doesn't end in our brain, but extends to our body, our gut and our nervous systems. This is called the neural network, and understanding these functions has lead to a booming field of artificial intelligence.
Artificial neural networks are now being used to aid in processing complex tasks with a large number of inputs in a similar way as humans do.
The system is based on how biological neural networks (that's us) function, and they fundamentally comprise of 3 layers:
The input layer and output layer are simply where information comes in and out. But the hidden layer has some interesting characteristics from the point of view of meditation.
In a neural network (unlike a traditional computer network), the path from input to output is not defined. Instead the system has to find its own route from input to output.
To do this, the hidden layer contains a few parameters to help it decide. Two it contains are filters and weighting.
Filters decide what information will be passed along, and which will not. This cuts down the amount of input data to be processed. Adjusting the filters changes the input the system has available to use.
Weighting is the importance given to certain types of input over others. It determines what information is considered more important than others.
When these are refined over time, the system "learns" and optimizes its function by creating the desired output while filtering out unimportant data and weighting the most important data more strongly.
This system is designed to replicate as close as possible how our brain and nervous systems process information. In our minds, the data is all the information we receive from our senses. When we engage in conditioning type exercises, we are trying to create a desired output (feeling) and by applying this attention over time, the system strengthens the pathway that leads to that output.
Vipassana works at a deeper level. In Vipassana, the process is to not seek a specific output (feeling) but instead to learn to observe what input is present without judgement or rejection.
I believe that Vipassana is working at the level of hidden layer parameters, like in the neural network above.
By seeking to not cling to or push away certain sensations, we are changing the filter values in our hidden layers.
This is what meditators talk about by being in the present moment. Most of the time, we are not aware of most of the things occurring in the present. We do not pay attention to all the smells, sounds, sights, and feelings that are occurring in every instant. By learning to be mindful, we are trying to increase our awareness of what is occurring, right now. It is a state of open mind, and when our filters adjust, we experience it as our mind "expanding" and becoming "vast" or "wide" or "expansive". It is a wondrous experience to have.
The result of this is that we change what input we become aware of, and having new information (even when the externalities of our life don't change) allows us to learn new things, and empowers us.
Secondly, by seeking equanimity, or nonreact as some psychologists are starting to call it, we are changing our weighting parameters.
Subjectively, we are all conditioned to feel that some information is more important than others, and this allows us to function in the world. However, when this conditioning becomes inappropriate for our current situation, the weighting values in our mind perpetuate old reactions, and they don't change to the new situation.
For example, most of us are still sensitive to specific insults that we were exposed to as children in school. When we were sensitive to these insults it was important for us to be part of a group. However, as an adult the risk of social rejection is much lower. The part of the mind that acknowledges these insults as important needs to change to adapt to the adults new social situation. If it stays stuck, we have an adult that has a harder time functioning in the world.
This focus on equanimity changes the way we weight information coming to us. The result of this is that how we feel changes. It is hugely satisfying to have the power to change how you feel about external situations you can't change. It creates joy and positivity in a person because they experience that in the long-term, they can become happier and happier, no matter their external situation. It can become so addictive, that many external forms of change no longer feel as satisfying, hence why many meditators start to retreat from the world after decades of practice.
This retreat is by no means necessary, and depends on the person. What this method gives instead, is an extremely powerful tool to be able to change the fundamental parameters about how we feel about ourselves, the people around us and the situations we find ourselves in. The cost of it is thousands of hours of hard work, but virtually everyone who experiences the benefits of it will continue to practice it for the rest of their life.
Conditioning exercises (such as metta meditation), seek to strengthen a neural pathway, often for a feeling. For example, metta meditation seeks to increase a persons feeling of compassion, leading to further happiness for them and creates incentive for their actions to be more moral towards themselves and others.
Concentration exercises are a type of conditioning exercise designed to train a fundamental skill, the ability to focus attention towards one object. They are exercises that strengthen our willpower over our subconscious mind and likely result in a strengthening in the functions of the brain that are involved in attention.
Vipassana, and other deconstructive meditations are harder to describe, and function very differently.
To understand this, it helps to also realize the concept of the neural network.
In my last post on the 3 minds, I mentioned that the network of neurons in our body doesn't end in our brain, but extends to our body, our gut and our nervous systems. This is called the neural network, and understanding these functions has lead to a booming field of artificial intelligence.
Artificial neural networks are now being used to aid in processing complex tasks with a large number of inputs in a similar way as humans do.
The system is based on how biological neural networks (that's us) function, and they fundamentally comprise of 3 layers:
The input layer and output layer are simply where information comes in and out. But the hidden layer has some interesting characteristics from the point of view of meditation.
In a neural network (unlike a traditional computer network), the path from input to output is not defined. Instead the system has to find its own route from input to output.
To do this, the hidden layer contains a few parameters to help it decide. Two it contains are filters and weighting.
Filters decide what information will be passed along, and which will not. This cuts down the amount of input data to be processed. Adjusting the filters changes the input the system has available to use.
Weighting is the importance given to certain types of input over others. It determines what information is considered more important than others.
When these are refined over time, the system "learns" and optimizes its function by creating the desired output while filtering out unimportant data and weighting the most important data more strongly.
This system is designed to replicate as close as possible how our brain and nervous systems process information. In our minds, the data is all the information we receive from our senses. When we engage in conditioning type exercises, we are trying to create a desired output (feeling) and by applying this attention over time, the system strengthens the pathway that leads to that output.
Vipassana works at a deeper level. In Vipassana, the process is to not seek a specific output (feeling) but instead to learn to observe what input is present without judgement or rejection.
I believe that Vipassana is working at the level of hidden layer parameters, like in the neural network above.
By seeking to not cling to or push away certain sensations, we are changing the filter values in our hidden layers.
This is what meditators talk about by being in the present moment. Most of the time, we are not aware of most of the things occurring in the present. We do not pay attention to all the smells, sounds, sights, and feelings that are occurring in every instant. By learning to be mindful, we are trying to increase our awareness of what is occurring, right now. It is a state of open mind, and when our filters adjust, we experience it as our mind "expanding" and becoming "vast" or "wide" or "expansive". It is a wondrous experience to have.
The result of this is that we change what input we become aware of, and having new information (even when the externalities of our life don't change) allows us to learn new things, and empowers us.
Secondly, by seeking equanimity, or nonreact as some psychologists are starting to call it, we are changing our weighting parameters.
Subjectively, we are all conditioned to feel that some information is more important than others, and this allows us to function in the world. However, when this conditioning becomes inappropriate for our current situation, the weighting values in our mind perpetuate old reactions, and they don't change to the new situation.
For example, most of us are still sensitive to specific insults that we were exposed to as children in school. When we were sensitive to these insults it was important for us to be part of a group. However, as an adult the risk of social rejection is much lower. The part of the mind that acknowledges these insults as important needs to change to adapt to the adults new social situation. If it stays stuck, we have an adult that has a harder time functioning in the world.
This focus on equanimity changes the way we weight information coming to us. The result of this is that how we feel changes. It is hugely satisfying to have the power to change how you feel about external situations you can't change. It creates joy and positivity in a person because they experience that in the long-term, they can become happier and happier, no matter their external situation. It can become so addictive, that many external forms of change no longer feel as satisfying, hence why many meditators start to retreat from the world after decades of practice.
This retreat is by no means necessary, and depends on the person. What this method gives instead, is an extremely powerful tool to be able to change the fundamental parameters about how we feel about ourselves, the people around us and the situations we find ourselves in. The cost of it is thousands of hours of hard work, but virtually everyone who experiences the benefits of it will continue to practice it for the rest of their life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)