Robert Hansen (RH) posted Sep 9, 2013 7:22 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9255970, (GSC's remarks interspersed): > > Somehow people pick up on this not-so-secret aspect > of human nature because if you observe the high > performing students you find that many of them were > pushed. I realize you wish human nature was > different, but how does that help anything? Wishing I > mean. > Bob Hansen > This is your claim [call it 'Approach A'] (which, by the way, I fully accept: it is utterly irrelevant to the argument - but see below).
Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that ALL or MOST of the high-performing students were PUSHED (and not ENCOURAGED)? No? I thought not.
If they were PUSHED a LOT and ENCOURAGED only a LITTLE, what was the relationship between the PUSHING and the ENCOURAGEMENT? How much did the PUSHING contribute to their high performance and how much did the ENCOURAGEMENT contribute? You don't know? I thought not.
I realise that you wish human nature was as you evidently wish it to be, but how does that help anything? Wishing, I mean. (By the way, pure behaviourism is largely discredited these days - plenty of studies showing that pure behaviourism is about as scientific as is 'economics' [that dismal non-science, i.e. it's not quite nonsense, but it's definitely a 'non-science']).
It is my claim that many of the high-performing students were ENCOURAGED and that they therefore and then learned how to PUSH themselves so that they would get themselves over the many difficulties and barriers that undoubtedly confronted them at various stages (call this 'Approach B'). Do I have any evidence for this claim? About as much as you have for your 'Approach A': I HAVE observed a sizable number of learners - probably at least as many as have you.
Do I have statistical studies? No. I wait for some reliable statistical people to take up the challenge of demonstrating their statistics.
At some stage, of course, there will have to be some statistical studies to enable us to arrive at a judgement between 'Approach A' and 'Approach B' - but that's a long time away.
I'll stick with 'Approach B' till it's proven wrong. It is my claim that 'Approach A' is clearly wrong - and that it would not be extremely difficult to demonstrate its incorrectness. I really have no interest in doing that. I also have no interest in proving that I cannot grow wings on my shoulders and use them to fly like a bird. I also have no interest in demonstrating that Frank Zubek needs to learn how to make his arguments against Buckminster Fuller clearly and correctly, which he persists in not doing.
Further, it is my belief (slightly weaker than a 'claim') that Approach B will definitely lead to MUCH better results than Approach A. Do I have any evidence that this belief is valid?
About as much as you have for your fatuous belief that 'Approach A' is tried, tested and proven - demonstrated to be the sine qua non of human behaviour and accomplishment.
As already noted (several times over), I fully accept that there will be many who (in the current societal systems) may actually respond to PUSHING better than they do to ENCOURAGEMENT. As I see it, this is an indication that a great many of our societal systems do need plenty of work to be done on them to render them truly democratic. My post heading the thread "Democracy: how to achieve it?" briefly discusses some of these issues (see http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536).
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING! Not GOADING!") > On Sep 9, 2013, at 12:53 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > I am pretty certain that the above would not - AND > SHOULD NOT - be the advice that he gives his > 'advisees' (assuming Dr Rosemond is as eminent a > 'parenting authority' as the blurb claims).