Technocrats Vs Humanities

When a sufficient volume of own knowledge, the habit quickly navigate in the studied material and often to iterate over all possible properties of any, uh, the mathematical object for. I can't judge, but I think the sooner a person learns this skill, the faster it becomes fully independent in the study of mathematics.

Of course, this does not negate the fact that this discipline is quite demanding from the learners. Probably the most demanding of all the forms of mental activity. But all of this anyway, you can pump, just someone will be easier, someone harder.

When a sufficient volume of own knowledge, the habit quickly navigate in the studied material and often to iterate over all possible properties of any, uh, the mathematical object for. I can't judge, but I think the sooner a person learns this skill, the faster it becomes fully independent in the study of mathematics.
But in the absence of these features, even a good teacher will have a difficult job.
But... not really. Rests in your limits and sooner or later stops.

Mathematics can understand any, just with a different absorption speed, unless. And then, the last often just depends on training and care, and other characteristics that have no direct relationship to the purely analytical abilities.

The absorption rate will differ by orders of magnitude, if not will tend to zero. What one learns in two years, the other one will understand except for 10, so I no longer question the advisability of teaching the Humanities to the engineering disciplines. Training and care then just play a secondary role, because if no analytical skills, and to train nothing.

There are no statistics, which would correctly reflect the cognitive abilities of individuals in a particular area of activity. How do you imagine the inability to learn math? Withdraw the investigation from the premises of any person in his right mind.

It is not necessary to level all under one comb. There are disciplines that can be mastered only with sufficient abilities. What about statistics - look at Nobel prize winners or just scientists and engineers whose names are on everyone's lips, which were referred to textbooks and monographs. Of all the people who ever worked in the technical fields, only a few have earned a name for himself. Because abilities are different.

I had in mind. To understand the sequence of insights anyone can.

Remember the logical chain, the authors believe a word is one thing, but to really understand it is another. Sometimes you think you understand, but then you start to analyze and ask yourself questions, and until you realize that you don't understand. If you have the ability to penetrate the essence of things, the ability to put ourselves these questions - the only way you will be able to see the full picture.

The absorption rate will differ by orders of magnitude, if not will tend to zero. What one learns in two years, the other one will understand except for 10, so I no longer question the advisability of teaching the Humanities to the engineering disciplines. Training and care then just play a secondary role, because if no analytical skills, and to train nothing.

Only your belief in it is clearly not enough to seriously put forward such a thesis, and to claim the truth.

because if no analytical skills

there is a default from any representative of homo sapiens. Elementary logical operations to produce any person. Further use of these insights and the evidence - a purely technical point.

It is not necessary to level all under one comb. There are disciplines that can be mastered only with sufficient abilities.

Again, just a manifestation without even trying to explain and justify.

What about statistics - look at Nobel prize winners or just scientists and engineers whose names are on everyone's lips, which were referred to textbooks and monographs. Of all the people who ever worked in the technical fields, only a few have earned a name for himself. Because abilities are different.

This is the point? Didn't catch the message.

Remember the logical chain, the authors believe a word is one thing, but to really understand it is another.

And I'm talking about to razobratsa in a sequence of insights and is not about memorization and dogmatic acceptance of a postulate. Why did you begin to refer to another? To understand just what may anyone. Just for this you need to understand consistently and aim in front of a closed mastering the subject and not random for the sake of a test/exam.

Ran the posts here.Somewhere flashed the phrase.They say often the problems are not solved not because someone stupid(not abstract or logical e insights to make any),but because afraid to use different approaches to the solution rests on one and thumb it.+100 author.

AxCx

Only your belief in it is clearly not enough to seriously put forward such a thesis, and to claim the truth.

All I said is based on my knowledge and experience, and if you don't want to believe it – God will judge. To an outside observer, your statements do not substantiate my own.

there is a default from any representative of homo sapiens. Elementary logical operations to produce any person.

Don't know what makes you so hard to say that all homo sapiens are the same, that all logical operations are equally simple. I know people who really want to learn some thing, but nothing worked. And even people who do not make friends with logic and not know how to build a logical chain (it's a terrible sight).

This is the point? Didn't catch the message.

To the fact that abilities are different, there is written in black and white. I do not remember that time, I'm trying to convey to you this simple truth. Among technicians there are more and less gifted person, and amongst all the other people too.

All I said is based on my knowledge and experience, and if you don't want to believe it – God will judge. To an outside observer, your statements do not substantiate my own.

Above I have explained here.

It is based on your experience, but who said that you correctly interpret the data of experience?

I know people who really want to learn some thing, but nothing worked.

The same result can be generated by different reasons. What makes you think that an object the person can not be studied because of its (human) intellectual bankruptcy as such?

To the fact that abilities are different, there is written in black and white. I do not remember that time, I'm trying to convey to you this simple truth. Among technicians there are more and less gifted person, and amongst all the other people too.

What makes you think that finding a solution is an indicator of genius? That man almost accidentally used a certain argument in a certain place - this still follows nothing.

Above I have explained here. - where is it?

It is based on your experience, but who said that you correctly interpret the data of experience?

Maybe incorrect, but we'll never know.

The same result can be generated by different reasons. What makes you think that an object the person can not be studied because of its (human) intellectual bankruptcy as such?

Well, maybe his grandmother was sick and he was out every night selling matches to collect her money for the medicine. But I'm still inclined to think that he just could not master the subject. Because he's not one of those who is studying for a diploma. Just to some it comes easy, while others with great difficulty.

What makes you think that finding a solution is an indicator of genius? That man almost accidentally used a certain argument in a certain place - this still follows nothing.

So you now claim that scientists accidentally invented quantum physics and the theory of superstrings, accidentally made an atomic bomb and put a man in space? On what basis? You have these people some sort of bias? Maybe you can explain why the most brilliant ideas come into the heads of a limited number of people, and why the total number of theorems and discoveries is much less than the number of scientists and the number of published patents less number of engineers?

Simply put, the Apple on the head everyone can fall, but not for everyone when it comes to mind to describe the law of gravity.

Dr. Manhattan,
calm down, the Matrix has spoken the truth, but that's not allow the separation of those and gum mind, unfortunately. Come to those who are digging deeper, but the Humanities will build its social model, its physicist. Here the question is of interest, not level of intelligence. We now live in a world of men, invented in part by the Humanities.

Quanta physics was a consequence of class contradictions. theory of radiation a blackbody jeans, and superstring theory--a direct continuation of the merging of theories and QCD. Here the issue is not the genius of some representatives of the science, and getting some small percentage of theories in the last. empirical data. Guess society deems as geniuses, although this is one of many proposed but rejected by empirical options.

where is it?

read the topic.

Maybe incorrect, but we'll never know.

Find out how. I can see on what basis you make your conclusions. 21.10.11 19:02 a little touched this topic. And believe me, I had enough to watch as there is a selection of clever in society.

Well, maybe his grandmother was sick and he was out every night selling matches to collect her money for the medicine. But I'm still inclined to think that he just could not master the subject. Because he's not one of those who is studying for a diploma. Just to some it comes easy, while others with great difficulty.

Again, 21.10.11 19:02.

So you now claim that scientists accidentally invented quantum physics and the theory of superstrings, accidentally made an atomic bomb and put a man in space?

Well, here Rattle exhaustively explained everything.

Hrip

Here the issue is not the genius of some representatives of the science, and getting some small percentage of theories in the last. empirical data. Guess society deems as geniuses, although this is one of many proposed but rejected by empirical options.

And still to come up with a theory, you need to fully understand the science, the ability to think creatively and targeted search solutions. The theory does not fall as snow on the head the first mustachioed Jew. Don't know how quantum mechanics, but relativity theory was this: first came the Michelson-Morley experiment and then Einstein drove it under your theory. The atomic bomb the same thing - it was done and done on time, because it worked not just anyone, and really outstanding people. Science and engineering is not the same area, specialises in underestimate the role of personality in history.

AxCx

read the topic.

I can see on what basis you make your conclusions.

Have you recently there is no concrete answers. Based on what I conclude? And where is the justification of your position? I need a whole topic to review, but it still would be that there is no justification, and all that work was wasted.

About 21.10.11 19:02. You really biased against techies. First, not all schools teach mathematics and physics in the ass, still have normal teachers who can lucidly explain. Ask any of them (or any good tutor, who in his lifetime has seen a lot of students) - they will tell you that all children have different abilities to the exact Sciences. Someone everything is easy, and someone has worked long and hard to explain. Second, knowledge of mathematics is not a measure of zadrotstva. Knowledge of the Humanities, Yes, there is really a need to spend hours over books to sit on. And techies are those who see that mathematics and physics they are better than others, and interested to solve problems and equations than to memorize paragraphs on the history. Most of them are normal guys, though there is some amount of wankers as in the Humanities. Well, thank fate for the fact that they were math nerds, not the nerds World of Warcraft's.

Actually, none of those who really fumbles in the technical Sciences, I will not say that they are not difficult humanitarian. How can you say that all people have the same abilities? God, this is such nonsense...

Don't know how quantum mechanics, but relativity theory was this: first came the Michelson-Morley experiment and then Einstein drove it under your theory.

What do you mean? So only in the school told. About ur-niya Maxwell and Lorentz transformations have not heard?

Einstein put forward several bold ideas, and used the findings of some other scientists for their study, proving the validity of his theory. After he few years he extended this theory to General relativity, describing it in the framework of such a thing as gravity. Simply put, Einstein SP..DIL lorencova conversion, as well as the man who invented the car, SP..DIL the idea of the wheel from the man who invented the wheel.

By the way, we're discussing why the most brilliant ideas ever occur to a limited number of people. You, I understand, also believe that it depends on the case and not the abilities?

they will tell you that all children have different abilities to the exact Sciences
Will develop the idea. Different people have different time period of learning.
Second, knowledge of mathematics is not a measure of zadrotstva. Knowledge of the Humanities, Yes, there is really a need to spend hours over books to sit on.
Here you consider yourself a techie, and for humanists to decide how they learn the material, And contactores you must, for the most part with the techies. Solid subjectivity.
And techies are those who see that mathematics and physics they are better than others, and interested to solve problems and equations than to memorize paragraphs on the history.
As in mathematics, and in history. cramming is exposed to only a small part of the material, the rest requires the ability to apply and analizirovat the material learned.
Actually, none of those who really fumbles in the technical Sciences, I will not say that they are not difficult humanitarian.
And as they say humanists?

rattle
the issue is not the genius of some representatives of the science, and getting some small percentage of theories in the last. empirical data. Guess society deems as geniuses, although this is one of many proposed but rejected by empirical options.-well, at last! how many lances were broken,how many holivarov,but the thought I always brought to you, do you hear a wheeze? what did you write? praise wheezing...I thought you looked quite dry in their closed provinciaux:)))) very nice rattle,here's the difference between recognition and cognition))))

Bobr luch

Will develop the idea. Different people have different time period of learning.

Exactly. Only now talking about a school course, on the basis. This course is elementary. For mathematics, the digestion time will vary significantly, and we've talked about this.

Here you consider yourself a techie, and for humanists to decide how they learn the material, And contactores you must, for the most part with the techies. Solid subjectivity.

That is what I think - history in school did not study? History is a set of facts, and if there are elements of analysis, all conclusions in the same textbook prescribed for memorization. The solution of problems in mathematics is a little more creative process. Or maybe high school history course is completely different from school? But the math in University is not like school decomposition of a square trinomial into factors.

As in mathematics, and in history. cramming is exposed to only a small part of the material, the rest requires the ability to apply and analizirovat the material learned.

In technical colleges, too, are history, philosophy and other humanitarian Sciences (in condensed form, of course. It is not clear just how the hell they gave us). So I know to some extent what the story is, and how it differs from strength of materials, while on humanitarian specialties of science are not taught. Therefore you find it difficult to judge, and perhaps it would be wise to trust the opinion of a man who with the help sign is not hearsay. To speculate on what was the Zemstvo reform of such year, any educated person in the kitchen for beer, either for the eternal srach forum (although the topic is not too interesting to talk about). There is no need to be a genius of history. It might be that it was too simplistic course of humanitarian disciplines in order to understand something, but it is unlikely in these Sciences is possible to come up with something really complex.

Dr. Manhattan
By the way, we're discussing why the most brilliant ideas ever occur to a limited number of people. You, I understand, also believe that it depends on the case and not the abilities?

Do you think that the local similarity theory of electromagnetic phenomena would not have appeared without Einstein? Would have appeared sooner or later, and then in the process of grinding appeared before us in the way STO is now, well, maybe just called differently. Under it, Minkowski created a mod. in the pseudo-Euclidean metric space, etc.

I think the process of learning object. the reality in historical perspective the role of individual personality does not matter.

Hameln, ATP, but I like this forum the idea and initially spent, not counting those deliberately trolling. Even got rid of a didactic tone, as you said the spec. terms in the vocabulary....It's probably my fault all the same, and clearly demonstrates the difference between the techies and the Humanities--I was not able to correctly verbalize his position, and because of this we had a misunderstanding...

Do you think that the local similarity theory of electromagnetic phenomena would not have appeared without Einstein?

Would appear. Perhaps she would come up with the same Lorentz, Maxwell, or some sort of genius. But certainly not the first Professor from Oxford.

But certainly not the first Professor from Oxford.

Remember Gödel. Who was he and what famous.

And still to come up with a theory, you need to fully understand the science, the ability to think creatively and targeted search solutions. The theory does not fall as snow on the head the first mustachioed Jew.

So who's latest claims? The point is that the selection of scientists in society never happened according to intellectual abilities. Moreover, a statement of the existence of the difference of latest for different individuals does not verificarea, as studies already have formed personalities reveal only the final result of the intellectual evolution of man.

Ask any of them (or any good tutor, who in his lifetime has seen a lot of students) - they will tell you that all children have different abilities to the exact Sciences.

The ability of the individual to be an exact science here-and-now is determined not purely intellectual abilities. In most cases, the experience of the previous study and only this. And net interest.

And techies are those who see that mathematics and physics they are better than others, and interested to solve problems and equations than to memorize paragraphs on the history.

Oh? What if modern education system suppresses the desire to do science is often if not always the man himself might his ability to recognize? What then?

Most of them are normal guys, though there is some amount of wankers as in the Humanities.

Are you in Antarctica live? Go to socpac MSU and in the audience of NMU. And compare. Don't be lazy, just compare.

Actually, none of those who really fumbles in the technical Sciences, I will not say that they are not difficult humanitarian. How can you say that all people have the same abilities? God, this is such nonsense...

First, who said engineering is not difficult humanitarian? Just the opposite. I moreover will tell, the lion's share of the Humanities contains no cognitive value at all.

Second, it is sometimes necessary to turn the head, not only in the proof of the formula for the treatment of Moebius, but also in the analysis of social phenomena. If the output is people with different sets of knowledge and skills - does not mean that originally they had different intellectual capacity.

You, I understand, also believe that it depends on the case and not the abilities?

The question should be put differently: what makes you think that it depends on the abilities? In General, formaliste the concept of intellectual abilities. What set of criteria? And how is it expressed?

To speculate on what was the Zemstvo reform of such year, any educated person in the kitchen for beer

And to speculate about the chronology of settlement or that renaissaince of ethnicity based on linguistic transformations under the beer can?

That is what I think - history in school did not study? History is a set of facts, and if there are elements of analysis, all conclusions in the same textbook prescribed for memorization. The solution of problems in mathematics is a little more creative process. Or maybe high school history course is completely different from school? But the math in University is not like school decomposition of a square trinomial into factors.
Therefore you find it difficult to judge, and perhaps it would be wise to trust the opinion of a man who with the help sign is not hearsay. To speculate on what was the Zemstvo reform of such year, any educated person in the kitchen for beer, either for the eternal srach forum (although the topic is not too interesting to talk about). There is no need to be a genius of history. It might be that it was too simplistic course of humanitarian disciplines in order to understand something, but it is unlikely in these Sciences is possible to come up with something really complex.
So the more mathematics is based on facts, know a lot of these facts and be able to apply them to solve the problem. And in General, any science can be studied at different levels of details. As you say school is different from higher mathematics. And Izuchenie history textbook with ready-made conclusions different from raboty documents, archival materials, Chronicles, work with related Sciences, and on this basis, the construction of his vision.