Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Wednesday by Dad....

Today's aphorism: Some people just want to look good.  Some people want to be good and look good.  Others don't care what they look like--they just want to be good and believe that the rest will follow.  While this last state may seem the most noble, you run in to trouble if you assume that people are even aware that that there is a difference.  -- me


-------------------------------------------------------------

    Okay...it's lunchtime, so I guess I'll write my post.  I've played with the format I want to use and still don't have it quite right, but it's close.  I think this is the general format I'll use at first:  A quote or aphorism (in today's case by me) at the top.  It will not necessarily have anything at all to do with the body of the post.  Consistency?  Why yes!  I'm going to be consistently inconsistent.  The body of the post (that's what you are reading) will probably be a narrative about whatever.  The rambling you see here is unquestionably a paragon of 'whatever'.

   In the footer (or just above it) I'm putting some asides. First (for now anyway) is a link to a few quotes taken from the family 'quote book'.  Next something I found, noticed, or wrote or was impressed with of a spiritual nature.  This week its a talk I gave--Johnny and Adrianna, you all already heard this one last Sunday.  Third is 'Shh It's a Secret'.  Yes, this one may on occasion be pretty lame--it's a true potluck.  Finally I'll post a few interesting things I've run across on the web--like 'Fishes' Numerical Abilities Comparable to College Student's'.  (See below.)


    I've spent most of this post rambling about the post itself--sort of like those teachers who spend the first month reviewing stuff you already know.  Well this is my first and last 'review' session, so there will be plenty more space for incoherent ramblings on future posts.  Incoherent ramblings are the main reason you are here right?

   I've enjoyed everyone's post so far--and Johnny, sorry I was a bit fussy last night.  :)  All college apps are in! and.... I was even awake for this morning's price reconciliation meeting.  I was afraid my number crunching skills would not be up to fish levels....but it all worked out.

--dad

Extras!

(I said what???  I really said that?)

(Or things that didn’t even make it on Facebook this week.)


Random things From the Web:

16 comments:

  1. I would say "incoherent ramblings" were exactly what I had in mind when we came up with this blog idea

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re: "Fish Handle Numbers," it's nice to know I'm going into thousands of dollars of debt for a good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No reason? There's plenty of reason. You wouldn't want to be less educated than your average guppy would you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is totally missing the point. The point of college is not just to crunch numbers, but to be able to analyze and convey ideas to others, gain more knowledge in your field, etc. When guppies can, with some guidance from professors of course, undergo research on the capabilities of humans to have the same numerical skills as guppies is when I'll think my money on education ill-spent.
    Anyway, the article on guppies was pretty awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dad.... 3/4 of the quotes are about me saying something silly/mean. Is this payback for yesterday? :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. The number judging thing is actually a well-studied subject. Everyone, including peoples without a number system that distinguishes between any numbers more than five, can recognize and evaluate different ratios of numbers quickly.

    And babies can do it too!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richard...this wasn't intentional payback... but it did work out nicely anyway didn't it? :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Andrew and Joseph.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Babies can do it too...." as long as you don't throw in Piaget type tricks. Judge more or less when items are one for one of the same size yep very well. More or less of total volume or area is a completely different story.

    It's just a guess, but I'm betting fish (except maybe savants:) don't quite reach the concrete operational stage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was actually kidding with the comment about student loans. As Joseph mentioned, the same abilities have been observed in infants, who have (presumably) never been to college. I'm pretty sure the author of the article was also joking in his title.
    As to the Piaget point, you're right; throwing in a spatial element would probably confuse the fish quite a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think it would depend on the nature of the "spatial element". Babies can judge two groups of large numbers, and determine which is larger, even when the area and density of the objects changes. For example, when they're judging the number of dots of varying size and object density.
    Now, comparing one object to another, in terms of absolute volume, etc, is where they trip up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes... the title was intentionally misleading, and I intentionally left it that way...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I expected comments like Ruth's first one...I should have also expected that we'd get into the more serious side of it... course we (so far) have stayed out of the other articles.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Always happy to be the predictable one :)

    ReplyDelete