A correction is needed - I had written: > > There are several good and very profound > investigations of WHY your nation and the world > around are in the manifold message they are in now. > The phrase "manifold message" should of course be "manifold messes".
GSC > Robert Hansen (RH) posted Feb 1, 2014 10:52 PM > (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=937741 > 6) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Feb 1, 2014, at 12:03 AM, GS Chandy > > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > "Children must be PUSHED (or GOADED) to learn > > math!" (and presumably everything else). > > > > Because most children would rather play with their > > friends than do times tables, solve problems or > > practice the piano. > > > Not necessarily true. It really depends, I'm fairly > certain, on just *how* and *why* whatever activity is > presented to those children. This is true for ALL > 'learning' not just the 'learning of math'. > > > > As parents we have the valuable > > ability to make them to do these things, while they > > are young, before they become adults. > > > As parents, we also have the greater experience and > physical strength to FORCE them to do a great many > things that may not be the best or the right things > to do: this was the 'Victorian approach', one might > say, to teaching. > > And a great many parents DO indeed use their greater > strength and experience as adults in exactly such > invidious ways. > > (However, 'child rearing' has since developed and > progressed a fair bit beyond such antediluvian > attitudes - though obviously such development is not > universal. You might have heard of one Dr Benjamin > Spock, who helped to educate many parents in the US > of A and elsewhere out of those antediluvian > attitudes - obviously he did not succeed with all > parents. In case you are interested, there is a fair > bit of quite useful information about Spock here - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock. > However, as you have I believe suggested elsewhere > e in regard to the 'learning of math', one has > actually to *feel it and experience it* in order to > grow out of those antediluvian attitudes to child > rearing. I observe that the worthy lessons that Dr > Spock taught about child rearing have enjoyed a fair > success in the US of A and elsewhere around the world > - though his wisdom has obviously not been > universally accepted. Some US parents still seem to > feel PUSHING and GOADING are the p! > rimary means available to them to teach children). > > As an analogy (metaphor?) of sorts, I note that > precisely such antediluvian ideas also used to > translate to whole nations and societies as well. > > For example, look at the British Empire at the height > of its colonial hubris. The "colonies" were believed > to be incapable of ruling themselves, they were > 'children' that had to be 'looked after' by the great > and wise British Empire, the 'father' and 'mother' of > all those colonies. > > As I understand, people in the colonies of what later > became the "US of A" (not "America"!) believed these > fairy stories to be false and threw the great and > wise 'father-mother Gt. Britain' out on their, pardon > my French, royal 'arses' ('asses', in 'US speak'). > > Much later, the Indian colony (in those days > described as the 'Jewel of the British Empire') did > just that - and many other colonies also followed > suit. The erstwhile colony that later became the US > of A developed, as you may be aware, to become the > most powerful 'nominally democratic' nation in the > world. (Note: It's only 'nominal' democracy; not > true democracy). > > These 'children of Gt. Britain' - US of A; India; > others - are still 'learning' (sometimes not very > well; in fact, successful 'societal learning' has > been rather rare - most such learning has been just > fortuitous and happenstance). > > Anyway, these erstwhile colonies have grown a fair > bit in the world - without a great deal of 'parental > assistance' from 'father-mother Great Britain' (whose > motives were never quite as pure as claimed by > 'imperialist' supporters). > > But why has 'societal learning' been so rare? I > claim that it is because of a lack of widespread > understanding of 'systems' and how we may cope with > them. > > > > And that > > discipline usually wears off on them. Making them > > more productive and accomplished adults. > > > > It?s parenting 101. > > > Ah, so THAT's where you got yourself stuck! > > Check out 'parenting 401', which goes approximately > as tollows: > > "Children should be ENCOURAGED to learn. Should such > ENCOURAGEMENT be done *effectively*, those children > will also learn (teach themselves) how to PUSH > themselves (and even to GOAD themselves when needed) > to overcome the great many difficulties and barriers > that they will encounter while learning". > > I observe that: > > PUSHING is done mainly 'from the rear', so to speak. > (It may turn out to be a bit smelly for the PUSHER, > , if the PUSHEE is afflicted by borborygmy and > flatulence). > > ENCOURAGEMENT is done mainly 'from the front', so to > speak. (To me, it appears to be entirely > 'commonsensical' that parents should use their > greater strength and experience to 'lead from the > front' rather than to PUSH from the rear). > > I am fairly sure that ENCOURAGEMENT is better [in > practically all 'favorable' circumstances] for > practically all human beings than PUSHING or GOADING. > It would take us too far afield at this thread to go > o into the reasoning behind this contention of mine. > Check out my OPMS website, which I hope will be up > p and running during 2014. OPMS is based, one might > say, on 'Parenting 401' - see below, for more > information about OPMS. (It is possible that people > who have grown up in a PUSHING and GOADING regime may > never be able to adjust to a regime where > 'ENCOURAGEMENT' is the norm [without PUSHING and > GOADING]). > > > > I am not sure if you are having a problem grasping > > what parenting is like, or if you just wish there > was > > an easier way. I asked you before what your > > experience was raising children and you basically > > responded that it was none of my business. > > > I do recall something of the sort (though I will not > now be able to access the specific mail where you > asked this or my response to you). As I recall, it > was the 'superior - in fact, objectionable and indeed > highly offensive - attitude and manner' of your > asking that led me to inform you that it was none of > your business. I observe that there is a fair bit of > such attitude and manner in this post of yours as > well. However, be that as it may: > > My 'experience' is not large by any means: two > children of my own, and my elder son's three adopted > grandchildren (the eldest is now around 18 years of > age) - all of whom are doing pretty well with their > respective lives. In fact, after I fell ill a few > years ago, I have been living with my elder son at > his organic farm near Bangalore, and he and his wife > have been taking very good care of me. > > > > Did you > > have to make your kids study and do their homework > or > > not? > > > I certainly ENCOURAGED them to study, and I tried to > make the learning as interesting as possible (within > my limitations). I consciously tried never to PUSH > or GOAD them (though it is possible that my adult > weaknesses may have occasionally led me into such > unrighteous ways; any instances of PUSHING/ GOADING > that may have occurred came about because of the poor > 'educational - and other - systems' that are rampant > in India. Come to think about it: no, there were NO > instances at all of PUSHING or GOADING in regard to > their studies). > > > > Did you have to make them practice the piano or > > did they naturally choose it over playing with > their > > friends? > > > No. I did not at all make them practice the piano > (or their math). If they approached me for help with > their math or with any other subject (apart from > music), I gave it to them as best I could, or I got > them the right books or the right tutors. If they > got poor results in their exams, I made my > disappointment clear (but NEVER via PUSHING or > GOADING). > > > > If there was an easier way, we would be all > > over it. We are intelligent and successful people. > > And parents. > > > There is indeed a better way than PUSHING or GOADING. > I believe you may not be in a position to apply it, > without a fair bit of preparation. The prerequisite > is a mind that is not hermetically sealed to the > ingress of new knowledge. > > The 'righteous way' would be, for *intelligent* > people, to ENCOURAGE instead of to PUSH or to GOAD. > That would, I claim, lead to better success. It is > s not difficult to do - but there is a very little > learning required and a fair bit of 'unlearning' > before one can successfully use this 'righteous way'. > > > > > Maybe it?s the element of > > competitiveness that makes us think differently > about > > these things. > > > It isn't. I have 'competed' all my life, quite > successfully, by and large. > > > > I have always worked for a living and > > you are aware that I had to climb up from extreme > > poverty to get to where I am. On the other hand, > you > > seem to have come from money, travelled freely, and > > attended school whenever and wherever you wanted. > > > Contrary to your falsehoods above, I have competed > (fairly well) all through my life. > > True, I did indeed come from quite comfortable family > circumstances - not from big 'money': my mother was a > well-reputed doctor; my father was a very successful > engineer. Those comfortable circumstances enabled me > to get the books and stuff that I might have wanted > or needed with no delay or difficulty at all. These > were exceptionally fortunate circumstances that I was > born and grew into (with no special effort on my > part) - and I never cease to be thankful for these > circumstances. I'm pretty sure I'd never have > achieved what I've done without those circumstances. > > However, after high school, most of my education was > through scholarships and fellowships (though I was > supported to a sizable extent by my parents > particularly in regard to books and stuff that I > might have wanted to buy). Yes, my schooling was > done at one of the 'top level' schools in South > India. After high school, I attended colleges not > quite "wherever I wanted", but generally at places > that gave me needed financial support via > scholarships and fellowships. Later, I won a > scholarship + teaching assistantship to a prestigious > US university. > > (ALL of this was won via fair competition, contrary > to the falsehoods that you now appear to be trying to > promote). > > [In this context, do recall your famous false > statements about OPMS being "list-making and nothing > else"!!! Check out the OPMS documentation to see > just how utterly false this famous Robert Hansen > claim is - anyone can find out from the attachments > to my post heading the thread Democracy: how to > achieve it?" - > http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536]. > > > > > Other than your failed venture with OPMS, I am not > > sure that you ever had to work. > > > Question: WHY and HOW is it that Robert Hansen thus > lies in his arguments with GSC? Does he believe that > his lies will prevail? > > The above suggestion from Robert Hansen is one more > instance of his well-known falsehoods: for instance, > OPMS is an ongoing venture, which has enjoyed some > quite remarkable success, though admittedly it has > not yet enjoyed the dazzling worldwide success I had > hoped for. But it has been entirely successful > wherever and whenever it has been tried out. > > [I did fail to get my financiers at Interactive > LogicWare, ILW, to use it in their work for ILW > (which led to the demise of that Company). I have > failed in quite a few cases to get various people to > check it out in person: it does require a fair bit of > 'intellectual discipline' to do that: many people > are, by virtue of our incompetent educational > systems, unable to put in sustained intellectual > effort into the things that they do]. > > Contrary to your falsehoods, I've been pretty > successful in my career: > > - -- I have worked, largely (not entirely) supporting > myself since the age of 17 or so. Not because I HAD > to, but because I ENJOYED working. (True, I > generally worked only at jobs I enjoyed doing - I was > fortunate that way, too). Anyway, 'working' was the > culture I was bred into, by the examples set by both > my parents (this is contrary to your falsehoods); > > - -- first major, professional job in in advertising > where I rapidly rose to be 'Creative Controller' in > the leading advertising agency in India at that time. > Gave up advertising as a profession because we > e needed to tell a great many lies in support of our > clients. As you may (or may not) be aware, I do > strongly object to the lies that rule a great many > parts of our society; > > - -- some freelance journalism all along (since my > schooldays); > > - -- set up and very successfully ran a small scale > industrial unit, which grew to be one of the largest > units of its kind in the South. At one stage, I > employed some 65 highly-skilled carpenters; > > - -- at this point, I got into 'systems science' > primarily because of the very sorry state of > f individual, organisational and societal systems in > India and around the world (INCLUDING your systems in > the US of A: elsewhere in your post, you have > acknowledged the sorry state of the way things are in > the US of A). > > My aim in 'systems science was, mainly, "to develop > means to enable people create more effective systems > for themselves". This became successful after I met > the late John N. Warfield in 1979. (I have admittedly > not been as successful as I would have liked to be in > 'promoting' the OPMS as a concept worldwide. Mainly, > this is because I always call a spadeful of crap > exactly by that very name - while monied and powerful > people would generally prefer to refer to it, > perhaps, as 'Chanel No. 5' or something of that > nature. Last month, I lost an investor who was > looking to invest Rs 20 million in 'some project' - > and I told him his ideas were worth less than > nothing. > > I observe that you have elsewhere in this post of > yours acknowledged the sorry state of the US of A - > though you've been entirely unable to understand why, > how and from where this sorry state arises: it really > is because your societal systems are very badly > screwed up [as are the societal systems in a great > many nations around the world, including India]). > > The late Winston Churchill once came out with a > saying that could be truly profound: "First, we shape > our buildings", said he. "Then, our buildings shape > us". (Just substitute the word "systems" for > "buildings" and you will have a piece of wisdom that > will be true for all time to come). > > > > At least Kirby has a > > resume of odd jobs. I haven?t seen even that much > from > > you. I have worked, literally and continuously, > since I > > was 14. > > > Robert Hansen appears to be under the mistaken notion > that he is the only person in the world who has > successful worked!! I might usefully point out that > there are quite a few other people in the world who > have indeed worked (including GSC), some of them > quite successfully; some of them have failed. > (Because of mainly 'systemic issues', the number of > f 'failures' is significantly larger than the number > of 'successes'). > > Question: WHY and HOW is it that Robert Hansen thus > lies in his arguments with GSC? Does he believe that > his lies will prevail? > > It is my belief (and hope) that ultimately the truth > must prevail. > > > > I am only pointing this out because that would make > a > > huge difference in our experiences and thoughts on > > how to raise children. > > > Question: WHY and HOW is it that Robert Hansen thus > lies in his arguments with GSC? Does he believe that > his lies will prevail? > > > >I want my son to be the best > > he can be because I feel he will need this as an > > adult in order to make a life for himself. > > > And your underlying 'philosophy' to "make your son > the best he can be" is is to PUSH and GOAD him into > learning math (and doubtless other stuff)? > > His personal interests and wishes have little or no > bearing on what he does and how he does it? > > Congratulations to you! > > OK, that is Robert Hansen's famous 'philosophy of > teaching and life'. Let's check out, in say, 10-15 > years' time whether the PUSHING and GOADING is better > than the ENCOURAGEMENT that I recommend. > > Of course, this would be only a single case, not > amounting to a 'scientific proof' whichever way it > may turn out. > > > > Especially with how our nation is now. > > > Yes indeed. ESPECIALLY that! > > Though I must accept that the world as a whole is in > truth in no better shape than is Robert Hansen's US > of A. > > There are several good and very profound > investigations of WHY your nation and the world > around are in the manifold message they are in now. > I believe you may not understand any of them, given > n your current attitudes and approach to life. Joseph > Stiglitz, winner of the Economics Nobel Prize, has > some useful ideas on the matter > (http://www.josephstiglitz.com/). Howard Zinn also > has many useful insights to provide as well. > > However: Most of these messes have arisen, I > believe, because of the grievously mistaken notion > that "Humans are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE!". (They > are not, by any means, and we may be about to arrive > at this realisation). > > > > And I have never seen > > this to be as easy as just asking him to be the > best > > he can be. It involves a competitive spirit, a > spirit > > you are likely not going to understand if you have > > never had to compete. I am the coach, he is the > > player, the game is life. > > > > Bob Hansen > > > There is 'constructive competition' and there is > 'destructive competition'. The USA has long been the > home of 'destructive competition'. > > I shan't at this time go into the details of the > differences between 'A' and 'B' - as that would > require 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg) to > discuss effectively (and interactively). > > But let's check out, in say 10 to 15 years' time just > how successful you have been, "Coach". At that > point, do check out the OPMS also. Of course, I > realise that a sound scientific evaluation would > require a statistical study of many more cases than > one - OPMS will have plenty of case studies for you. > > (It is, however, rather unlikely that I shall be > around at that time). > > GSC > ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")