Diverse populous requires diverse education system, and US has remarkably diverse AND flexible one. A student in US can be home-schooled for K to 6th grade, enter a charter school focused on science for 6 to 8th grade, go to public high school, enter liberal arts college studying history, and then go to business school and succeed. A student in Japan on the other hand has to go to a good kinder garden, go to a good private elementary school, take an exam to get into a good Jr high school to prepare for the entrance exam for high school, pick business concentration in high school to study for entrance exam for college, and then get accepted to an undergrad program at a college with good business school so she has a chance to get into one. Most Japanese graduate students did their undergrad at the same school because that's how you get into a good one. But here in US I was told to go somewhere else so I can diversify my views.
This diversity and flexibility offers opportunities at every level not seen in many other countries. In Hong Kong, students are put on a track, science, arts, or commerce, at high school level and have little chance of switching from then on. In Switzerland, students are separated into 3 levels based on their intellectual abilities at high school level. Where they go for higher education depends on what level they were placed. Same principles do exist in US but at much lesser degree.
Both Hong Kong and Switzerland almost always place high in measures of education, higher than US. But are we more stupid? We are slightly more productive than the two countries (GDP per capita). Given that we spend more money on education than any other country, we certainly are inefficient. But what if that inefficiency comes as a cost of diversity, fairness, and flexibility? For that matter, are we more fair? I think so because our education offers diverse options at every level compared to other countries, but isn't that question just as important as how we score in the tests?
The major flaw of the current state of education in US, and rightfully so the most damaging criticism of US education is it's illiteracy rate. Everyone should be able to read and write. But the debate on education focuses too much on test scores at the expense of combating illiteracy. Yes, US education is bad, but it's not because we score low on the tests. It's bad because we have a lot of illiteracy.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Chickens in Fort collins
This story appeared on NPR (Ed found it);
Yes, I know, I should have been one of more than 100 people waiting. It's for free chicken sandwiches for a year after all. I might have had to clime over the frozen bodies of those in front of me, but man, them chicken sandwiches...
In all seriousness, prosperity changes our connection to food. Food is food to anyone who don't have enough of it, but it is organic, local, trans-fat, complex carbohydrate, make my ass get big thing to those who have plenty. I understand that these differences do exist. But they become important only when you are wealthy enough to have plenty of food. To the poor and the hungry, it's not important that the food is organic or local or trans-fat free. They don't have that luxury.
Those who waited in front of Chick-fil-A were dead serious and maybe desperate for free food. I'm sure some of them were only there for the "fun" of it or shortening their lives eating poorly. But anyone who waits for free food - of any kind - in a blizzard has my respect. Shame on NPR for implying that they might be a little nuts. Some of them need help. (shame on me too for making fun of them above, but I'm no National Public Radio).
Chick-fil-A opened a restaurant in Fort Collins, Colo. As a promotion, it promised free chicken sandwiches for a year. That prize would go to the first 100 customers. More than 100 people camped out to get the prize. They remained outside the restaurant even though it was snowing. A blizzard dropped 17 inches. And still people stayed, surviving with propane heaters and hot chocolate provided by the restaurant.
Yes, I know, I should have been one of more than 100 people waiting. It's for free chicken sandwiches for a year after all. I might have had to clime over the frozen bodies of those in front of me, but man, them chicken sandwiches...
In all seriousness, prosperity changes our connection to food. Food is food to anyone who don't have enough of it, but it is organic, local, trans-fat, complex carbohydrate, make my ass get big thing to those who have plenty. I understand that these differences do exist. But they become important only when you are wealthy enough to have plenty of food. To the poor and the hungry, it's not important that the food is organic or local or trans-fat free. They don't have that luxury.
Those who waited in front of Chick-fil-A were dead serious and maybe desperate for free food. I'm sure some of them were only there for the "fun" of it or shortening their lives eating poorly. But anyone who waits for free food - of any kind - in a blizzard has my respect. Shame on NPR for implying that they might be a little nuts. Some of them need help. (shame on me too for making fun of them above, but I'm no National Public Radio).
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Diversity theory of education - Part 2, diversify!
I would like to think that I'm more informed than average Americans. But even I have not nearly enough information on many of the most pressing political decisions. Like the recession, the health care, and the war, and I imagine that I'm not the only one. Take health care for example. I don't even know what's on the current version of the proposed legislation, let alone the implications of it. I am not informed enough to make any sort of decision on it. On top of this, I don't have the time or the inclination to learn about this.
My strategy to get to an informed decision relies on other people to simply the matter. Newspapers, magazines, radios, the internet, have many experts summarizing health care reform. I can then make my decision accordingly. The key here is to remember that most (if not all) secondary information like the newspaper comes with intent. It might be to sell the paper (most of the time the intent is to profit, which is not bad) or to influence your opinion. As long I understand that, I can judge which resources to trust. This is much easier than to gather all the information my self.
This method fails when restrictions decrease the diversity of information. Just as more genetically diverse population (of say condors) can withstand variety of perturbations, the diversity of information increases the chances of the right and useful one existing. This is one of the reasons we guarantee the freedom of political speech.
The most fundamental way to have diversity of secondary information is to have diversity of people. We need people who understands health care. We need people who understands economics. We need people who understands governance. If the amount of information is overwhelming, then what we need is diversity of people.
My strategy to get to an informed decision relies on other people to simply the matter. Newspapers, magazines, radios, the internet, have many experts summarizing health care reform. I can then make my decision accordingly. The key here is to remember that most (if not all) secondary information like the newspaper comes with intent. It might be to sell the paper (most of the time the intent is to profit, which is not bad) or to influence your opinion. As long I understand that, I can judge which resources to trust. This is much easier than to gather all the information my self.
This method fails when restrictions decrease the diversity of information. Just as more genetically diverse population (of say condors) can withstand variety of perturbations, the diversity of information increases the chances of the right and useful one existing. This is one of the reasons we guarantee the freedom of political speech.
The most fundamental way to have diversity of secondary information is to have diversity of people. We need people who understands health care. We need people who understands economics. We need people who understands governance. If the amount of information is overwhelming, then what we need is diversity of people.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Early work in cybernetics, a theory of systems as information processors, solidified under two essential presumptions:
1. that thinking is computation
2. physical laws exist that explain how nature appears to possess a form of finality, or teleonomy. The presumption is essentially that things do not just happen randomly, but tend towards certain regular states despite the fact that it cannot be said that they necessarily had to.
NB: The problem of imputing necessity to nature (natural world of empirical laws) defined Kant's critical philosophy. Hume famously reputed the argument that nature operated according to necessity (that things could not be otherwise) and demonstrated that all we can safely say is that human beings give the idea of necessity to nature by habit of association. We see the sun rise everyday which leads us to believe that it MUST rise tomorrow. Hume believed that anything not encountered in our experience, could not be said to have necessary validity, or be used as part of an argument that claimed to be beyond dispute. Kant argued that because we cannot derive the idea of necessity from our experience (we never experience necessity, so why do we have the idea of it in the first place?), even by association, that it must be a category of thought. It must be natural to the mind, occuring before experience takes place, if not to nature itself. Moreover, Kant held that the idea of necessity actively structures our perception of nature.
Back to cybernetics. Cyberneticians were not mind-body dualists. For them, mind or thinking is mechanical: minds basically are computing machines--minds are not just IN human bodies, and they don't define what it means to be human. The claim is more general. As Jean-Pierre Dupuy put it,
“[t]he computation involved is not the mental operation of a human being who manipulates symbols in applying rules, such as those of addition or multiplication; instead it is what a particular class of machines do—machines technically referred to as ‘algorithms.’”
Cybernetic systems were thought of as machines that precisely pilot, control or direct _their own activities_. Why? To reduce the complexity or noise in their environments and make possible dynamic properties and behaviors in their responses to this complexity. How can dynamic properties result from operations of self-control and self-direction, from a reduction of environmental complexity? Are such systems geared toward stasis? How do dynamic properties and behaviors result from systemic reductions of complexity?
Cybernetic systems draw a distinction between themselves and their environments and, once the distinction is drawn, consist in control mechanisms internal to the boundaries of a system. The environments of these systems thus act as mere triggers or perturbing devices. They thus build up their own, internal complexity as part of their historical responses to change in the environment. Control mechanisms operate to reproduce the system homeostatically, that is, control mechanisms represent the systems auto-poietic character: the fact that it produces itself by reproducing its elements or operations (without making recourse to the environment through an exchnage of information. Think of a thermostat. Or a heat-seeking missile.
Cybernetics thus addresses the following problems:
1. The self-organization of complex systems and
2. Their self-regulation through operations such as feedback;
3. The passage between the differing levels of integration of a system;
4. The modalities of openness and closure of a system;
5. The question of teleology and finality.
6. The concept of code or information.
1. that thinking is computation
2. physical laws exist that explain how nature appears to possess a form of finality, or teleonomy. The presumption is essentially that things do not just happen randomly, but tend towards certain regular states despite the fact that it cannot be said that they necessarily had to.
NB: The problem of imputing necessity to nature (natural world of empirical laws) defined Kant's critical philosophy. Hume famously reputed the argument that nature operated according to necessity (that things could not be otherwise) and demonstrated that all we can safely say is that human beings give the idea of necessity to nature by habit of association. We see the sun rise everyday which leads us to believe that it MUST rise tomorrow. Hume believed that anything not encountered in our experience, could not be said to have necessary validity, or be used as part of an argument that claimed to be beyond dispute. Kant argued that because we cannot derive the idea of necessity from our experience (we never experience necessity, so why do we have the idea of it in the first place?), even by association, that it must be a category of thought. It must be natural to the mind, occuring before experience takes place, if not to nature itself. Moreover, Kant held that the idea of necessity actively structures our perception of nature.
Back to cybernetics. Cyberneticians were not mind-body dualists. For them, mind or thinking is mechanical: minds basically are computing machines--minds are not just IN human bodies, and they don't define what it means to be human. The claim is more general. As Jean-Pierre Dupuy put it,
“[t]he computation involved is not the mental operation of a human being who manipulates symbols in applying rules, such as those of addition or multiplication; instead it is what a particular class of machines do—machines technically referred to as ‘algorithms.’”
Cybernetic systems were thought of as machines that precisely pilot, control or direct _their own activities_. Why? To reduce the complexity or noise in their environments and make possible dynamic properties and behaviors in their responses to this complexity. How can dynamic properties result from operations of self-control and self-direction, from a reduction of environmental complexity? Are such systems geared toward stasis? How do dynamic properties and behaviors result from systemic reductions of complexity?
Cybernetic systems draw a distinction between themselves and their environments and, once the distinction is drawn, consist in control mechanisms internal to the boundaries of a system. The environments of these systems thus act as mere triggers or perturbing devices. They thus build up their own, internal complexity as part of their historical responses to change in the environment. Control mechanisms operate to reproduce the system homeostatically, that is, control mechanisms represent the systems auto-poietic character: the fact that it produces itself by reproducing its elements or operations (without making recourse to the environment through an exchnage of information. Think of a thermostat. Or a heat-seeking missile.
Cybernetics thus addresses the following problems:
1. The self-organization of complex systems and
2. Their self-regulation through operations such as feedback;
3. The passage between the differing levels of integration of a system;
4. The modalities of openness and closure of a system;
5. The question of teleology and finality.
6. The concept of code or information.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Things I like at the moment
These are the things I like at the moment.
Football. I think college football is more entertaining than pro football. The tradition, the rivalries, the discussions, and of course the mascots get me excited on Saturdays. I wish the people around me like it more. Pro football on the other hand is awesome for fantasy sports and reading about it the next day. Watching pros isn't that much fun for some reason.
Data. I managed to gather a lot of it, and even though it sure causes pain during analysis I feel better having them. What are they going to tell me?
Avocados and tofu. They are tasty in a way that I would have not liked when I was little.
And last but not least, New Morning. New Morning posted a whopper on systems. I'm happy to see philosophy represented well. It made me jealous of philosophers for being able to argue endlessly without people thinking you are an ass.
Football. I think college football is more entertaining than pro football. The tradition, the rivalries, the discussions, and of course the mascots get me excited on Saturdays. I wish the people around me like it more. Pro football on the other hand is awesome for fantasy sports and reading about it the next day. Watching pros isn't that much fun for some reason.
Data. I managed to gather a lot of it, and even though it sure causes pain during analysis I feel better having them. What are they going to tell me?
Avocados and tofu. They are tasty in a way that I would have not liked when I was little.
And last but not least, New Morning. New Morning posted a whopper on systems. I'm happy to see philosophy represented well. It made me jealous of philosophers for being able to argue endlessly without people thinking you are an ass.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Fort Collins, Colorado
Falcon "the balloon boy" tricked us. Yes he did. His whole family did. What I don't understand is why would anyone choose to be on a TV when he could have gone flying in a UFO instead? Why do people want to be on TV in the first place? Where am I, in Hollywood? Funny how everyone here hates LA, but they already live in a small town version of it.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Systems and Individuals
‘System’ is a key philosophical concept, which in the 18th century became indissolubly linked with the philosophical problem of individuation. Individuation is the problem of determining how individuals are individualized, taking on discrete identities. Why did the concept of system become linked with the problem of individuation? Individuation presumes that there are individuals. That is, contrary to some monism of substance, if we accept that there are individuals, then we challenge the notion of the whole. Of course, questions of parts and wholes, the one and the many, are as ancient as philosophical thinking itself. Yet the problem of individuation flourished in the philosophical literature only with the demise of religion, or, the idea that one substance maintained a relationship of primacy, generally causal, with respect to all others. As soon as credence was given to the notion that individuals have viable being, in themselves, the conventional notion of system, as a whole or unity of nature, was undermined. Thus, system philosophy is not about the unity or wholeness of the world. Rather, it endorses the view that the world is composed of gaps, fissures, and relations among parts without any ultimate coherence. Systems philosophy is an attempt to grasp a world of multiplicity, and even the etymology of the term system suggests that a system is a unity *of* differences. That said, system philosophy does endorse the idea that multiplicity and difference, a world of individuals, may nonetheless be thought, or conceptualized, in some consistent way. When the idea that the concept of system no longer describes the whole, or the set of all sets, rises to prominence, what comes into being is a set of conceptual tools developed matching in complexity with a world without some holistic finality.
The problem of individuation itself used to describe a world where individuals were basic, indivisible substances, or atoms. In such a world, relations among individuals matter less than cataloging the basic atoms of being, and little attention is paid to the processes undergone by individuals. Such processes can only be accidents of substance, not the essence of individuals. However, research in systems in the 19th and 20th century, as well as the undermining of the world of classical thermodynamics towards a vision of dynamic systems at far-from-equilibrium conditions without final ends or stases, showed the limits of understanding individuals as basic substances. One might think of the importance of the theory of ‘elective affinities’ among chemical substances, an invention of 19th century chemistry, which placed primacy not in individual substances, but in the relations between substances. Iron (Fe) is defined less by the number of protons it carries than by the fact that it undergoes very different changes in its properties in the presence of atmospheric oxygen (rust) versus in the cells of living organisms (nutrient). Thus, studying chemical substances became a question of stoichiometrical relationships in dynamic interactions and processes. The reductionistic study of individual atoms gave way to the study of relations and processes in dynamic interactions. If an individual (an atom, a tree, a society) were to reveal the secrets of its identity and its behavior, it must be related systemically to other individuals. A systemic conception of individuality meant understanding individuals as results and processes generated in dynamic interactions. In this way, the traditional concept of individuality was shown to reflect an already-individuated effect of systemic being, and that examining the systemic relations and processes that generate individuality granted a richer conception of individuality.
Thinking systemically called traditional scientific concepts of linear causality, determinism, and reductionism into question, replacing them with notions of circular causality, self-organization, indeterminacy, and the unpredictable emergence of order from disorder. Thinking systemically meant working toward developing a unified theory and methodological approach to investigate not just the classical simplicities of the mechanistically structured material world, but also the complexities of biological, cognitive, and even social systems. Thus was set into motion a new, post-Newtonian scientific paradigm for research.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, studying systems, whether in science or philosophy, goes hand in hand with addressing problems specific to:
1. The self-organization of complex systems and
2. Their self-regulation through operations such as feedback
3. The passage between the differing levels of integration of a system;
4. The modalities of openness and closure of a system (system boundaries);
5. The question of teleology and finality;
6. The concept of code or information.
Systems, on the parameters listed above, presuppose the following assumptions
1) individuals are results of systems;
2) systems articulate relations and processes;
3) an individual is the generated result of systemic relations and processes;
4) following 1-3, if we want to explain how individuals are individualized (take on particular identities), we must first think of individuals as systems.
The problem of individuation itself used to describe a world where individuals were basic, indivisible substances, or atoms. In such a world, relations among individuals matter less than cataloging the basic atoms of being, and little attention is paid to the processes undergone by individuals. Such processes can only be accidents of substance, not the essence of individuals. However, research in systems in the 19th and 20th century, as well as the undermining of the world of classical thermodynamics towards a vision of dynamic systems at far-from-equilibrium conditions without final ends or stases, showed the limits of understanding individuals as basic substances. One might think of the importance of the theory of ‘elective affinities’ among chemical substances, an invention of 19th century chemistry, which placed primacy not in individual substances, but in the relations between substances. Iron (Fe) is defined less by the number of protons it carries than by the fact that it undergoes very different changes in its properties in the presence of atmospheric oxygen (rust) versus in the cells of living organisms (nutrient). Thus, studying chemical substances became a question of stoichiometrical relationships in dynamic interactions and processes. The reductionistic study of individual atoms gave way to the study of relations and processes in dynamic interactions. If an individual (an atom, a tree, a society) were to reveal the secrets of its identity and its behavior, it must be related systemically to other individuals. A systemic conception of individuality meant understanding individuals as results and processes generated in dynamic interactions. In this way, the traditional concept of individuality was shown to reflect an already-individuated effect of systemic being, and that examining the systemic relations and processes that generate individuality granted a richer conception of individuality.
Thinking systemically called traditional scientific concepts of linear causality, determinism, and reductionism into question, replacing them with notions of circular causality, self-organization, indeterminacy, and the unpredictable emergence of order from disorder. Thinking systemically meant working toward developing a unified theory and methodological approach to investigate not just the classical simplicities of the mechanistically structured material world, but also the complexities of biological, cognitive, and even social systems. Thus was set into motion a new, post-Newtonian scientific paradigm for research.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, studying systems, whether in science or philosophy, goes hand in hand with addressing problems specific to:
1. The self-organization of complex systems and
2. Their self-regulation through operations such as feedback
3. The passage between the differing levels of integration of a system;
4. The modalities of openness and closure of a system (system boundaries);
5. The question of teleology and finality;
6. The concept of code or information.
Systems, on the parameters listed above, presuppose the following assumptions
1) individuals are results of systems;
2) systems articulate relations and processes;
3) an individual is the generated result of systemic relations and processes;
4) following 1-3, if we want to explain how individuals are individualized (take on particular identities), we must first think of individuals as systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)