From ScienceDaily: Humans And Chimpanzees Genetically More Similar Than One Yeast Variety Is To Another
Scientists at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden say that humans and chimps are more similar on that level than two yeast species in the same genus. (FYI, we're in the same family as chimps, Hominidae or the great apes.)
I do think it's pretty cool... I like chimps, at least theoretically, as I don't know if I've ever met them. But they're cute, and they seem smart and feisty, and except for the whole endangered-species thing, I sometimes think I'd rather be an ape than a human.
I think this is a crappy comparison, though. This article says that there is a 4% difference in genes between the two yeast species, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. paradoxus, and a 1% difference between chimps and humans.
So, S. cerevisiae has 12,156,677 base pairs. I couldn't find a figure for the other. But say it's the same amount. With a 4% difference, that means around 486,267 base pairs are out of order or replaced in some way.
Not such an exact number for humans; everything says "approximately 3 billion." We can go with that, though. No numbers for the chimps, either, but you should look at the wiki article because they are adorable. Anyway. A 1% difference in 3 billion genes is... 3 million.
I just think there is a slight difference between almost 500,000 and 3 million, no matter the percentages.
Ah, well, I'm not a geneticist or anything. Maybe it is deep and meaningful. It is pretty cool to read about the Chimpanzee genome project and look at the only really obvious difference: at some point, for us, the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes that the chimp and human lines shared fused into one larger chromosome, with the addition about 150,000 or so base pairs. And since according to that article I posted this morning, the human and chimp line underwent the burst of genetic duplication that is thought to be the basis of our "human-ness," chimps are like our extended family, and I'm not trying to make a taxonomy pun here. They're like our cousin. Maybe second cousin, once removed. Hey, I don't mind grooming, but I won't eat mites.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
sweet personal dynamo, and, ahem, a rant
From New Scientist: Innovation: Personal dynamo
This is a sweet little gadget. Hook it on something that's going to move, and as it rolls on the ground, it generates electricity. Not a huge amount, but the dynamo is intended to shore spotty communication in developing or undeveloped countries, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa; inventor Cedrick Ngalande says, "At normal walking speeds we have gotten more than 2 watts, which is more than enough for running cellphones or radios."
I think it would be pretty awesome for everyone, though. Backpackers, campers, anyone who's on the go in a way that involves a lot of moving yourself, like people who fly a lot (not sure if security'd let it on the plane, but anyway). The author also suggests it as part of of a kid's toy so the batteries couldn't run out as long as the kid's batteries didn't run out.
For some reason I've gotten into the habit of reading comments... the people who commented on this article art pissed. They think it's the worst idea ever. Solar's better; wind's better; wind-up's better. All those poor starving people shouldn't have to walk for their energy; roads suck in undeveloped villages; it'll get covered with shit. IT SUCKS AND IT WILL NEVER EVER BE USEFUL.
To them I say: hey, guys. Stop bitching. Clean, inexpensive energy solutions are needed and useful, and we don't have to be monogamous about how we get it. Different things are useful in different situations. Neither the author nor the inventor suggested we strap one of these on the back of every African south of -15°, just like it would be silly to suggest that solar, wind, and water power can meet every need everywhere.
I get the impression that these posters think that impoverished starving people either shouldn't be or shouldn't have to think about more than food, or perhaps that richer nations shouldn't be thinking about more than feeding them. That make assuage their hunger for a while, but starvation isn't the problem. Starvation is a symptom; poverty is the problem.
Corrupt, inept governments mismanage land, money, and natural resources. The people are generally uneducated and illiterate. Populations tend to be disorganized or even isolated, and completely unprotected by their governments from both invading and native armies as well as the exploitative rich. Conflict and genocide caused by changing climate, overpopulation, greed, racism, and overgrown tribalism are widespread. And, compounded with and aggravated by all of that, an HIV epidemic where physical and prophylactic safety are scarce, rape is rampant, and too many people know little about the disease and are unable to learn more.
But let's just about feeding them, right?
This is a sweet little gadget. Hook it on something that's going to move, and as it rolls on the ground, it generates electricity. Not a huge amount, but the dynamo is intended to shore spotty communication in developing or undeveloped countries, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa; inventor Cedrick Ngalande says, "At normal walking speeds we have gotten more than 2 watts, which is more than enough for running cellphones or radios."
I think it would be pretty awesome for everyone, though. Backpackers, campers, anyone who's on the go in a way that involves a lot of moving yourself, like people who fly a lot (not sure if security'd let it on the plane, but anyway). The author also suggests it as part of of a kid's toy so the batteries couldn't run out as long as the kid's batteries didn't run out.
For some reason I've gotten into the habit of reading comments... the people who commented on this article art pissed. They think it's the worst idea ever. Solar's better; wind's better; wind-up's better. All those poor starving people shouldn't have to walk for their energy; roads suck in undeveloped villages; it'll get covered with shit. IT SUCKS AND IT WILL NEVER EVER BE USEFUL.
To them I say: hey, guys. Stop bitching. Clean, inexpensive energy solutions are needed and useful, and we don't have to be monogamous about how we get it. Different things are useful in different situations. Neither the author nor the inventor suggested we strap one of these on the back of every African south of -15°, just like it would be silly to suggest that solar, wind, and water power can meet every need everywhere.
I get the impression that these posters think that impoverished starving people either shouldn't be or shouldn't have to think about more than food, or perhaps that richer nations shouldn't be thinking about more than feeding them. That make assuage their hunger for a while, but starvation isn't the problem. Starvation is a symptom; poverty is the problem.
Corrupt, inept governments mismanage land, money, and natural resources. The people are generally uneducated and illiterate. Populations tend to be disorganized or even isolated, and completely unprotected by their governments from both invading and native armies as well as the exploitative rich. Conflict and genocide caused by changing climate, overpopulation, greed, racism, and overgrown tribalism are widespread. And, compounded with and aggravated by all of that, an HIV epidemic where physical and prophylactic safety are scarce, rape is rampant, and too many people know little about the disease and are unable to learn more.
But let's just about feeding them, right?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
too many babies
From BBC News: Population: The elephant in the room
From Dr. John Feeney comes an editorial about how our unchecked population growth will lead to a Malthusian catastrophe, and how environmentalists don't really like to talk about overpopulation and its control. I totally agree. It is an issue, and it is affecting our environment. Somewhere around 100 species go extinct every day, because we're converting biomass to human-mass (I stole that from Daniel Quinn, I'll admit). People are starving all over the plant, and they keeps getting food and more land gets converted, but they're still starving.
I think the taboo on the subject comes from a lot of things. First, of course, is that birth control is still a touchy subject, mostly because certain religious groups try to block access to it, especially to those who most need it, the poor. In the US, when the pill came out back in the '50s and then got really popular in the '60s, minority groups accused the government and Margaret Sanger (a birth control advocate who helped bring everything together in its creation) of eugenics and racism. On the part of Sanger, this is, unfortunately, true. But those who don't really have the means to support children probably shouldn't be having them. I don't know if we can erase poverty, but I can't imagine growing up in it will help break the cycle.
However, I also don't think rich people should be having a ton of kids just because they can, though I admit "a ton" is relative (some say one should be the limit, some say two, some say more). I've heard people give Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt a hard time because they have something of a brood now, but I mean, they only had three; the other three are adopted. Nothing wrong with adopting. On the other hand, there is that woman in California who just had octuplets when she already had six kids because of some crazy fertility treatment; or that couple in Arkansas with 18 kids. I don't see how they can raise that many. My mother just had three, and even when she was a stay-at-home when we were young it seemed pretty stressful.
However, moving on. I think there's also an issue because the cultural meme is that women should be having children, preferably more than one. Women who don't want to have children get a lot of shit, as do women with only one. I feel like women who aren't sure if they want them or now feel like it's better to in case they regret it.
Last is that for a lot of women, especially in developing and third world countries (though definitely in developed, too!), it's not an issue of consensual sex. Where women are raped, or are given away in marriage forcefully or too young to really understand. I don't feel like in those cases it's a birth control access issue, or just that, it's a women's rights issue. It seems like women's rights is still somewhat controversial: in the US while Bush was in office, in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and I'm sure many other places around the world. I don't know how much birth control can help women who never really have any choice in the sex.
I don't know what the solution is. I mean, in a lot of ways, having children around is nice. I mean, we're wired to like babies. I have a niece, and she's adorable, and my sister makes an excellent mother; at this point, though, I'm not sure if I'll be having children. I'm 25, so I've got time to really decide. Part of me wants to; the other part of me realizes I have trouble taking care of plants. That part of me also thinks I shouldn't be contributing to the problem, and leave it to people like my sister who will actually do it well.
From Dr. John Feeney comes an editorial about how our unchecked population growth will lead to a Malthusian catastrophe, and how environmentalists don't really like to talk about overpopulation and its control. I totally agree. It is an issue, and it is affecting our environment. Somewhere around 100 species go extinct every day, because we're converting biomass to human-mass (I stole that from Daniel Quinn, I'll admit). People are starving all over the plant, and they keeps getting food and more land gets converted, but they're still starving.
I think the taboo on the subject comes from a lot of things. First, of course, is that birth control is still a touchy subject, mostly because certain religious groups try to block access to it, especially to those who most need it, the poor. In the US, when the pill came out back in the '50s and then got really popular in the '60s, minority groups accused the government and Margaret Sanger (a birth control advocate who helped bring everything together in its creation) of eugenics and racism. On the part of Sanger, this is, unfortunately, true. But those who don't really have the means to support children probably shouldn't be having them. I don't know if we can erase poverty, but I can't imagine growing up in it will help break the cycle.
However, I also don't think rich people should be having a ton of kids just because they can, though I admit "a ton" is relative (some say one should be the limit, some say two, some say more). I've heard people give Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt a hard time because they have something of a brood now, but I mean, they only had three; the other three are adopted. Nothing wrong with adopting. On the other hand, there is that woman in California who just had octuplets when she already had six kids because of some crazy fertility treatment; or that couple in Arkansas with 18 kids. I don't see how they can raise that many. My mother just had three, and even when she was a stay-at-home when we were young it seemed pretty stressful.
However, moving on. I think there's also an issue because the cultural meme is that women should be having children, preferably more than one. Women who don't want to have children get a lot of shit, as do women with only one. I feel like women who aren't sure if they want them or now feel like it's better to in case they regret it.
Last is that for a lot of women, especially in developing and third world countries (though definitely in developed, too!), it's not an issue of consensual sex. Where women are raped, or are given away in marriage forcefully or too young to really understand. I don't feel like in those cases it's a birth control access issue, or just that, it's a women's rights issue. It seems like women's rights is still somewhat controversial: in the US while Bush was in office, in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and I'm sure many other places around the world. I don't know how much birth control can help women who never really have any choice in the sex.
I don't know what the solution is. I mean, in a lot of ways, having children around is nice. I mean, we're wired to like babies. I have a niece, and she's adorable, and my sister makes an excellent mother; at this point, though, I'm not sure if I'll be having children. I'm 25, so I've got time to really decide. Part of me wants to; the other part of me realizes I have trouble taking care of plants. That part of me also thinks I shouldn't be contributing to the problem, and leave it to people like my sister who will actually do it well.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
don't go overboard
From New Scientist: Human emissions could bring 'irreversible' climate chaos
First, let me say: I'm not a warming skeptic or anything like that. I think we need to stop polluting, being wasteful, and using fossil fuels. Now, preferably. It'll suck, but you can't keep shitting in your own bed without starting to feel pretty nasty.
However, I also think that articles like this are kind of... misleading, maybe? Or perhaps as short-sighted as people who don't want drastic changes to our environmental policies because short-term economic concerns.
Scientists are predicting that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels now, by the year 3000, CO2 levels "would still be around a third higher than pre-industrial levels."
Even if we can quickly switch over to alternative energies, no matter what we do, it's going to suck for people right now. It's going to suck for people for a while. But 1000 years isn't really that long. Yeah, I know it's what, 40 generations? But think 1000 years ago. Sure, we didn't have any of the sweet technology we do now, but a lot of our cultural roots were around then.
And think about it on a geological time scale. We're in the middle of a interglacial period of an ice age, a period that started about 12,000 years ago. The last interglacial period, which started about 130,000 years ago, lasted 20,000 years. According to Wikipedia, a scientist has predicted a warm period of at least another 50,000 years (because of low eccentricity of the Earth's orbit), but we really don't know.
Plus, crazy stuff always happens. For example: before about 50 million years ago, Earth was a lot warmer and wetter, and CO2 levels were some like ten times what they are now. Then, about 49 mya, a bunch of ferns pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere (Azolla event), eventually lowering the amount from ~3800 ppmv to ~100 ppmv. Earth started the ice age cycle it's going through today.
I'm a little unsure of my point, I think. It's not that we should forget about environmentalism or anything like that. The way we're doing things sucks, and if we want to stick around, we have to find better ways. I guess I'm just saying, we can't save the world. We can't save everything. We can't hold the world as it is. The Earth changes; we have to evolve to it, not the other way around.
I'm just afraid someone's going to do something crazy like try and pull all of the CO2 gases out of the air, and we'll end up in a glacial period again. We're not ready for that guys. I hate the cold.
First, let me say: I'm not a warming skeptic or anything like that. I think we need to stop polluting, being wasteful, and using fossil fuels. Now, preferably. It'll suck, but you can't keep shitting in your own bed without starting to feel pretty nasty.
However, I also think that articles like this are kind of... misleading, maybe? Or perhaps as short-sighted as people who don't want drastic changes to our environmental policies because short-term economic concerns.
Scientists are predicting that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels now, by the year 3000, CO2 levels "would still be around a third higher than pre-industrial levels."
Even if we can quickly switch over to alternative energies, no matter what we do, it's going to suck for people right now. It's going to suck for people for a while. But 1000 years isn't really that long. Yeah, I know it's what, 40 generations? But think 1000 years ago. Sure, we didn't have any of the sweet technology we do now, but a lot of our cultural roots were around then.
And think about it on a geological time scale. We're in the middle of a interglacial period of an ice age, a period that started about 12,000 years ago. The last interglacial period, which started about 130,000 years ago, lasted 20,000 years. According to Wikipedia, a scientist has predicted a warm period of at least another 50,000 years (because of low eccentricity of the Earth's orbit), but we really don't know.
Plus, crazy stuff always happens. For example: before about 50 million years ago, Earth was a lot warmer and wetter, and CO2 levels were some like ten times what they are now. Then, about 49 mya, a bunch of ferns pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere (Azolla event), eventually lowering the amount from ~3800 ppmv to ~100 ppmv. Earth started the ice age cycle it's going through today.
I'm a little unsure of my point, I think. It's not that we should forget about environmentalism or anything like that. The way we're doing things sucks, and if we want to stick around, we have to find better ways. I guess I'm just saying, we can't save the world. We can't save everything. We can't hold the world as it is. The Earth changes; we have to evolve to it, not the other way around.
I'm just afraid someone's going to do something crazy like try and pull all of the CO2 gases out of the air, and we'll end up in a glacial period again. We're not ready for that guys. I hate the cold.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
45 minutes on 1/20/09
I live pretty close to DC, but I didn't go into town for the Inauguration yesterday. Even though I'm very happy Obama is our President, something about braving bitter cold in the pre-dawn hours with a million other people made me want to curl up in front of my TV with a blanket and hot cup of tea instead.
One of the things I like about Obama (that he has been criticized for) is his professorness. When he speaks, he doesn't bite off clips for the news to play over and over. He doesn't play to people's knee-jerking instincts, though he does try to sway emotions. I feel like he's giving the benefit of the doubt to us, the American people. His speeches are to intelligent people, and it seems like he's willing to work a little harder to treat us like actual reasoning beings instead of basically saying, "Because I said so," and "It's good for you." His speeches aren't sentences and seconds; they're paragraphs, essays, many moments together.
I thought that could sum up the Inauguration itself (I didn't follow the parade or balls or anything, except to check out Michelle Obama's dress, of course). It was very powerful, and I enjoyed it for the most part. Aretha's performance was grand as always (perhaps not her strongest ever, but she looked great and it was very emotional), and I loved the quartet performance of Air and Simple Gifts. However, I thought Elizabeth Alexander's poetry reading was kind of a dud. From her bio, it seems like she's a decorated writer, so maybe she just psyched herself up too much.
Being fairly agnostic, state-led prayers can be a little annoying to me, but getting a non-pinko shoutout from Obama helped. Also, a great deal of the country is Christian or otherwise religious, and there are better battles to pick. That said, I thought Rick Warren's invocation fell pretty flat. I understand what Obama was trying to do. I just think it kind of sucked. Like, he was pulling it all out of his ass. Or he cut out pieces from a bunch of different sermons and speeches, put them in a hat, and picked out some. On the other hand, I really liked Rev. Joseph Lowery's Benediction. It was moving and a little humorous, and that Lowery was a civil rights activist gave kind of a nice "full circle" feel.
I thought Obama's Address was excellent. I've read some criticism that he wasn't very hopeful; some wanted more specific policy ideas; it was "good but not great."
For the first, I can understand that point. He's been pointing out for a while that the economic situation will get worse before it gets better. And I mean, who's denying that? It took almost a decade-and-a-half with World War II for the country to recover from the Great Depression. Things aren't as bad as they were when FDR took office, but these things don't just resolve themselves overnight. I like to think that when Obama is saying "hope," he's not saying, "I'm a superhero; I'm your saviour; I will fix all problems and everything will be peachykeen and you can start buying too much crap again." He's saying, "This way isn't working, and with that idea in your leader, together we can all change ourselves, the way we live and thus the world." Things can't go back to the way they were; it's unsustainable economically. We need to move forward, try to rid ourselves of the idea that everything's about more and better stuff, stop sacrificing the future for the present. And it's going to suck for a lot of people, because when Obama said, "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense," he didn't mean it in the same way that Cheney did when he said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable."
Anyway, for the second, I really don't see how anything specific would have added to it. Obama isn't just trying to make and change laws; he wants to add fuel to the fire of ideas. Plus, he's pretty much been talking all along of what he's going to do, on his website, with Congress, and in his "fireside chats."
And the last... I don't really know what the NYT wanted. Angel choirs, the area to suddenly become a warm beach, with unicorns running around, I don't know. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who's ever heard an Obama speech knows he's not good for a soundbite. No "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "ask not what your country can do for..." Let's wait a decade or two and wait for history and quote books to decide, though, all right?
Anyway, what he does is just as important as what he says. And I'm happy what he's done so far, so we'll just have to see how this goes.
One of the things I like about Obama (that he has been criticized for) is his professorness. When he speaks, he doesn't bite off clips for the news to play over and over. He doesn't play to people's knee-jerking instincts, though he does try to sway emotions. I feel like he's giving the benefit of the doubt to us, the American people. His speeches are to intelligent people, and it seems like he's willing to work a little harder to treat us like actual reasoning beings instead of basically saying, "Because I said so," and "It's good for you." His speeches aren't sentences and seconds; they're paragraphs, essays, many moments together.
I thought that could sum up the Inauguration itself (I didn't follow the parade or balls or anything, except to check out Michelle Obama's dress, of course). It was very powerful, and I enjoyed it for the most part. Aretha's performance was grand as always (perhaps not her strongest ever, but she looked great and it was very emotional), and I loved the quartet performance of Air and Simple Gifts. However, I thought Elizabeth Alexander's poetry reading was kind of a dud. From her bio, it seems like she's a decorated writer, so maybe she just psyched herself up too much.
Being fairly agnostic, state-led prayers can be a little annoying to me, but getting a non-pinko shoutout from Obama helped. Also, a great deal of the country is Christian or otherwise religious, and there are better battles to pick. That said, I thought Rick Warren's invocation fell pretty flat. I understand what Obama was trying to do. I just think it kind of sucked. Like, he was pulling it all out of his ass. Or he cut out pieces from a bunch of different sermons and speeches, put them in a hat, and picked out some. On the other hand, I really liked Rev. Joseph Lowery's Benediction. It was moving and a little humorous, and that Lowery was a civil rights activist gave kind of a nice "full circle" feel.
I thought Obama's Address was excellent. I've read some criticism that he wasn't very hopeful; some wanted more specific policy ideas; it was "good but not great."
For the first, I can understand that point. He's been pointing out for a while that the economic situation will get worse before it gets better. And I mean, who's denying that? It took almost a decade-and-a-half with World War II for the country to recover from the Great Depression. Things aren't as bad as they were when FDR took office, but these things don't just resolve themselves overnight. I like to think that when Obama is saying "hope," he's not saying, "I'm a superhero; I'm your saviour; I will fix all problems and everything will be peachykeen and you can start buying too much crap again." He's saying, "This way isn't working, and with that idea in your leader, together we can all change ourselves, the way we live and thus the world." Things can't go back to the way they were; it's unsustainable economically. We need to move forward, try to rid ourselves of the idea that everything's about more and better stuff, stop sacrificing the future for the present. And it's going to suck for a lot of people, because when Obama said, "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense," he didn't mean it in the same way that Cheney did when he said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable."
Anyway, for the second, I really don't see how anything specific would have added to it. Obama isn't just trying to make and change laws; he wants to add fuel to the fire of ideas. Plus, he's pretty much been talking all along of what he's going to do, on his website, with Congress, and in his "fireside chats."
And the last... I don't really know what the NYT wanted. Angel choirs, the area to suddenly become a warm beach, with unicorns running around, I don't know. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who's ever heard an Obama speech knows he's not good for a soundbite. No "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "ask not what your country can do for..." Let's wait a decade or two and wait for history and quote books to decide, though, all right?
Anyway, what he does is just as important as what he says. And I'm happy what he's done so far, so we'll just have to see how this goes.
Friday, January 16, 2009
gifted children and how I came to hate the rote
From ScienceDaily: Education Professor Dispels Myths About Gifted Children
Dr. Steven Pfeiffer, a professor and psychologist at Florida State, says in this study that gifted children really do need some sort of "special needs" program in order to reach their potential. He also says there needs to be more effort to identify gifted children. For a long time, "schools used one measure, the IQ test," but the traditional IQ test doesn't measure all the nuances of intelligence. In addition to measuring traditional intellectual and academic ability, creativity, artistic talent, leadership, and motivation should also be taken into consideration.
I agree with him on all accounts. When I was in high school, I knew several very smart kids who didn't do well mostly because they were bored (I was one of them; though I'll let you decide how smart I am). Though I don't think the whole "different kinds of intelligence" thing is very new. I remember in a high school psych class we discussed the different types of intelligence (which included inter- and intrapersonal communication, too, but I guess those could fall under leadership and motivation).
I don't like our current one-size-fits all school system. Everybody learns at different speeds and in different things; everybody's interested in different things; everybody has different strengths, weaknesses, and goals (though I don't know how clear those goals are at a young age. but I know I wanted to be an architect in my "tween" years, so it can't all be rock or sport stars). I also wish subjects weren't so cut and dry. It wasn't until I started taking college classes that I realized how interconnected disciplines are.
For example, I'm reading a book about the history and philosophy of zero. (Zero: the Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Seife, if you're interested.) I never knew before that this mathematical concept and its philosophical equivalent of the void was extremely controversial in Europe because of reigning Aristotelian views that were enforced by the Church. (Aristotle believed the world was static and all space was filled, which went in line nicely with the Christian belief that God created a perfect world very recently and that the Earth is the center of the universe.) This is why when calendars were created during the Middle Ages, there was no year 0 representing the birth of Christ, and why centuries and millenia start on year 1 rather than 0. When the concept of 0 started taking hold of Europe during the Renaissance, not only were there huge advances in science and mathematics (solving Zeno's paradox, calculus, calculating tangent), the idea of the void allowed artists to finally develop true perspective. And now we are able to accept that the universe is expanding.
Philosophy should be a required course in secondary school, I think.
Anyway, I think if there was more emphasis on how different fields affect each other, and how they affect a person, regular students would have find school more interesting, as well as being more prepared for college or work or tech school or life.
Dr. Steven Pfeiffer, a professor and psychologist at Florida State, says in this study that gifted children really do need some sort of "special needs" program in order to reach their potential. He also says there needs to be more effort to identify gifted children. For a long time, "schools used one measure, the IQ test," but the traditional IQ test doesn't measure all the nuances of intelligence. In addition to measuring traditional intellectual and academic ability, creativity, artistic talent, leadership, and motivation should also be taken into consideration.
I agree with him on all accounts. When I was in high school, I knew several very smart kids who didn't do well mostly because they were bored (I was one of them; though I'll let you decide how smart I am). Though I don't think the whole "different kinds of intelligence" thing is very new. I remember in a high school psych class we discussed the different types of intelligence (which included inter- and intrapersonal communication, too, but I guess those could fall under leadership and motivation).
I don't like our current one-size-fits all school system. Everybody learns at different speeds and in different things; everybody's interested in different things; everybody has different strengths, weaknesses, and goals (though I don't know how clear those goals are at a young age. but I know I wanted to be an architect in my "tween" years, so it can't all be rock or sport stars). I also wish subjects weren't so cut and dry. It wasn't until I started taking college classes that I realized how interconnected disciplines are.
For example, I'm reading a book about the history and philosophy of zero. (Zero: the Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Seife, if you're interested.) I never knew before that this mathematical concept and its philosophical equivalent of the void was extremely controversial in Europe because of reigning Aristotelian views that were enforced by the Church. (Aristotle believed the world was static and all space was filled, which went in line nicely with the Christian belief that God created a perfect world very recently and that the Earth is the center of the universe.) This is why when calendars were created during the Middle Ages, there was no year 0 representing the birth of Christ, and why centuries and millenia start on year 1 rather than 0. When the concept of 0 started taking hold of Europe during the Renaissance, not only were there huge advances in science and mathematics (solving Zeno's paradox, calculus, calculating tangent), the idea of the void allowed artists to finally develop true perspective. And now we are able to accept that the universe is expanding.
Philosophy should be a required course in secondary school, I think.
Anyway, I think if there was more emphasis on how different fields affect each other, and how they affect a person, regular students would have find school more interesting, as well as being more prepared for college or work or tech school or life.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
overspend to mate?
From Live Science: Ooga Ooga! Men Overspend to Attract Mates
A double-whammy of "what-guys-do-to-get-laid-scientific-style." As with the previous study, where guys act aggressive to attract mates, I understand the underlying why but not the over-arcing why. In this study, scientists find that men who live beyond their means get laid a lot more. But, and forgive any sexism towards both men and women that will probably follow, I just get images of expensive meat-market clubs where women paint themselves deeper and men buy them expensive drinks to have sex with them. Women who want a man to buy them expensive things and take them expensive places. Men who do so, and complain that women only want their money. The cattiest kind of women, and the assholiest kind of men.
It's quality over quantity, guys. And gals.
I'm not just saying the quality of the relationship, or at least I don't mean casual sex is horrible and it's best if everybody tries to be in relationships. I just feel like the type of women who tries to get through life on her looks only, and the type of man who drives himself into debt to get pointless hot girls can be very good friends or companions or dates or lovers or spouses.
Like I wrote upwards, I'm probably just stereotyping this whole thing. I've never been much of a clubber or bar-goer (at least to pick people up) myself. I guess it's just this whole consumerism thing that pisses me off. I like buying new toys for myself, and I like new pretty clothes, but spending shit tons of money on clothes disgusts me, and the fun I would have playing an XBox360 on a big HD TV would not cover up the sinking feeling of being inescapably in debt when I can barely support myself.
Plus, I think guys who live happily within their means are pretty sexy. And I totally love that Not So Big House thing.
A double-whammy of "what-guys-do-to-get-laid-scientific-style." As with the previous study, where guys act aggressive to attract mates, I understand the underlying why but not the over-arcing why. In this study, scientists find that men who live beyond their means get laid a lot more. But, and forgive any sexism towards both men and women that will probably follow, I just get images of expensive meat-market clubs where women paint themselves deeper and men buy them expensive drinks to have sex with them. Women who want a man to buy them expensive things and take them expensive places. Men who do so, and complain that women only want their money. The cattiest kind of women, and the assholiest kind of men.
It's quality over quantity, guys. And gals.
I'm not just saying the quality of the relationship, or at least I don't mean casual sex is horrible and it's best if everybody tries to be in relationships. I just feel like the type of women who tries to get through life on her looks only, and the type of man who drives himself into debt to get pointless hot girls can be very good friends or companions or dates or lovers or spouses.
Like I wrote upwards, I'm probably just stereotyping this whole thing. I've never been much of a clubber or bar-goer (at least to pick people up) myself. I guess it's just this whole consumerism thing that pisses me off. I like buying new toys for myself, and I like new pretty clothes, but spending shit tons of money on clothes disgusts me, and the fun I would have playing an XBox360 on a big HD TV would not cover up the sinking feeling of being inescapably in debt when I can barely support myself.
Plus, I think guys who live happily within their means are pretty sexy. And I totally love that Not So Big House thing.
the magic of perfection
I'm rereading Providence by Daniel Quinn, who is one of my favorite authors. (His website is ishmael.org.) Here's a bit that stuck out for me as he describes his childhood:
I'm trying to teach myself that though I should definitely work as hard as I am able and continue to push my limits, the perfectionist worldview is complete and utter bullshit. The point of being alive is to grow. If you don't need to grow, you might as well die. And if I think less of myself because I don't excel at everything - school, work, people, love, taking care of myself - it will be harder to grow and be happy and be satisfied with myself.
But of course I couldn't be them [idk: his parents] or force them to behave the way I wanted them to. I was in the same relation to them as the ancient rainmaker was to the elements. All I could do was produce in myself the effects I wanted my parents to manifest. All I could do was make myself perfect, the way I wanted them to be.I understand this, having struggled with a desire for perfection myself, and having struggled with people struggling with perfectionism. If I'm not there yet, it's just because I'm doing something wrong.
That then was my magic, to be perfect. It didn't work, of course, but no one in the whole history of the world ever quit on anything just because it didn't work-- magic, science, politics, love, religion. But especially magic. To give up on magic because it doesn't work would be silly. If it doesn't work, that just means you didn't do it right. That's how you tell you didn't do it right--when it doesn't work.
Anyone knows that. (Quinn pg 26-27)
I'm trying to teach myself that though I should definitely work as hard as I am able and continue to push my limits, the perfectionist worldview is complete and utter bullshit. The point of being alive is to grow. If you don't need to grow, you might as well die. And if I think less of myself because I don't excel at everything - school, work, people, love, taking care of myself - it will be harder to grow and be happy and be satisfied with myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
