Graduated Certification for Applying Common Sense by James Dunn

How come your comments do not appear headed in an orange box like an author's replies ought to do?

Sir, I pity you. You are suffering from a severe case of chronic informania. I have no need to prove that any real object is a real object. I am a real person.

With amicable regards,

Joe Fisher

Mr. Dunn,

I am truly sorry for the comments I have tarnished your essay entry comments boxes with. Please forgive me. My comments were unnecessary and totally uncalled for.

Regretfully,

Joe Fisher

Joe,

I looked for your essay, but could not find one listed. Involved perspectives often have useful information buried within them. I won't necessarily accept everything you have to share, but likely there will be relationships I will find interesting.

Respect is only acquired by the mutual sharing of useful information. As we teach each other something useful, trust is attributed within the context of consideration. This is universally how respect is directly acquired.

The opposite of respect is Disdain. Disdain is attributed when distrust is developed due to telling lies, deceitful omission, negligence ....

The combination of accumulated trust from Respect and Disdain form Self-Esteem within a particular social group.

So I appreciate your apology and remain open to hear your perspectives.

James

James,

Thank you for your tolerance.

My essay is called REALITY, ONCE. It was posted on February 11, 2014.

Joe

James,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be advocating a system designed to help humans develop mental discipline; perhaps you would find the paper I reference in my own essay, "Contemplative Practices and Mental Training: Prospects for American Education", interesting. Your program seems rather ambitious and for certain the community of humans could use a bit more ethics and rationality, the recent wars, manipulations, and financial instabilities being evidence of such; however, humans are not computers. Humans are notoriously irrational and occasionally irrational thoughts lead to novel and extremely valuable developments.

I believe this is probably why many organizations, such as IBM and NASA, have been working towards narrow-focused Artificial Intelligence (AI) for so long. These AI systems are built on foundations of probabilistic logic and have proven effective in many situations such as risk assessment (NASA) and, relevant to your example, medical diagnosis (IBM). But what these systems have not been able to improve on, or even mimic (to date), is the doctor's or engineer's creative intuition, an intuition which is often based in illogical thought processes - or so it would seem. Of course no formal proof, or, for that matter, convincing argument, demonstrating the inability of these systems to eventually mimic or exceed the creative abilities of humans has been forthcoming; hence, such a future situation would seem logically inevitable provided current trends continue. Some humans greatly fear just such a thing.

Forgive me for being mischievous, but in your "Trivial Application" you state, "working longer hours benefits both and is not a reason for higher wages;" having worked as an independent contractor and as the production manager of a medium sized manufacturing company, I feel qualified to say this is rarely, if ever, true. Typically, there are two primary situations in which an employer asks an employee to work overtime: when the employer is being incentivized to complete the project in an expedited manner; when someone in management, generally either bidding or scheduling, screws up.

Any employer competent enough to last in the business world has developed tried and true methods for including labor costs in their bid. Most employers actually profit, oftentimes rather handsomely, from their labor, even after all overhead is accounted for. And if a job is being expedited at customer request you better believe it's being incentivized with higher wages factored in; to not pay one's employees higher wages, i.e. time and one half, in such a scenario, would be highly unethical.

In the case of bidding, scheduling, or some other management error, paying higher wages for overtime introduces valuable feedback into the control system; if that feedback dictates, either replacing incompetent personnel (including the boss) or hiring additional employees may become economically justified.

Working longer hours does not always benefit employees; there are activities other than work which add considerable value to an employee's life which could become compromised when working longer hours. In both of the cases cited above, paying higher wages represents "common sense" and, in the case of America, it's also the law . . .

Wesley,

Humans well trained in logic do not seem to have a problem expressing themselves through art, music, software creations, culinary works ... The are often preoccupied by priorities, but they can generally teach themselves anything.

But the opposite does not seem to be true. People that dominantly express themselves irrationally, cannot sell their art works for significant profit margins and are unable to maintain productive business relationships. Irrational people are plagued by arrests and law suits, and are not offered as many significant opportunities due their unreliability and related risks they represent.

Regarding your perspective of working overtime as a pursuit by an employee to "create incentive" for an employer to pay higher wages. The complexity involved with that scenario is too involved for the short essay. However, with companies like Walmart, an employee working more than 30 hours a week can get fired because it costs Walmart much more to hire full-time employees than hiring "more" part-time employees. This also means more people are supported by Walmart; the scope of the essay is different than extensive discussion concerning human resources, company policies, and ethics. But, in-general, a management rule of thumb is that you are lucky if you get 6 hours of production out of an employee per day. So restricting an employee to 6 hours of work per day and 30 hours of work per week provides a greater return on investment for the employer. Employee's are often happier by having to work less hours if they live within their means. An employee that watches the clock to punch out is there to make money, not be productive.

I know a physician that makes $160,000 a year. They work 14 hours a day during weekdays, and 6 hours a day on weekends; always. No vacations. They have about $20,000 a year in professional expenses related to insurance, licensing... That is an average of $33/hour. They take home about $22/hour. They paid more than $220,000 in school loans. They worked more than 10,000 hours (5 years of a full-time person's job) for free to pay off their loans and interest. But they love their job! And they have personally helped more than 100,000 people with their health problems over their career so far. More if you include the physicians she has trained.

I "believe" that people with ADHD, diabetes, heart problems, genetic deformities ... all contribute to the diversity of humanity; in much more than just aesthetic inspirations. Systems must often mutate to evolve. Evolving often creates new traits that did not exist previously. Most of them fail to become sustainably supported. But eventually a trait is supported by an environment of relationships and it becomes a vital feature for human survival. Like being able to stand on two legs, articulating thumbs, cognition, geometric processing of the brain in terms of optical and tactile perception ...

Engineers often use Fuzzy Logic, Expert Systems, Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms ... to "hunt" for more optimal solutions. This is recognized in science and engineering and these systems can be quite complex depending upon the number of degrees of freedom being controlled. Degrees of freedom might be thought of a the number of dimensions being considered.

Artificial Intelligence is a bit of a different beast because of the number of dimensions involved, and the limited computation resources at present. This will likely change in the not too distant future when quantum computers provide access to parallel processing. For the non-technical person, this means essentially the potential equivalent of thousands of computers interactively working with each other to move toward complex systems of solutions; like the human brain.

However, I see a large percentage of high school graduates that are NOT able to deductively consider future potential employment/self-employment opportunities, identify pathways for developing themselves, and then have the determination to teach themselves what they need to know to achieve their goals.

I want to shift the dominance toward humans being able to socially share greater numbers of low-risk significant opportunities with each other. Greater numbers of persons in a group with common sense means more opportunities can be acted upon due to the trust shared by people within a group. This translates to greater national prosperity.

"The great purpose of education is to train the brain to Efficiently teach one's self; to become an expert at anything Passionately pursued." ~JD

James

Ambition is the fuel that drives success.

James,

I greatly enjoyed your essay, and I broadly support your efforts, though I don't know how good a 'common sense' role model I would be. I entirely agree with your assessment about the erosion of the ability for people to think for themselves, and in my essay, I attribute that to a failure to recognize the value of play as a learning strategy. So teaching common sense could help some but not all of the problems you enumerate.

I think part of the problem is an overall erosion of perceptual acuity as documented in the Tübingen study, published in '99. The number of shades of gray or green perceptible by college students at the end of the study was remarkably less than those at the beginning and participants' acuity was tuned in mostly to loud sounds, bright colors, and so on. So teaching common sense may be more difficult than you imagine.

I remember meeting an engineering consultant named James Dunn once, years ago, and having a meal at a German restaurant in PA, talking about a baffle placed in UV fixtures to prevent interference between the light sources. Was that you? In any case; your essay was enjoyed, and it reminds me of a lecture given by my instructor in Metal Shop - back in High School - which I will always remember. Good luck!

Regards,

Jonathan

James,

Your essay made common sense a lot more interesting. But it still leaves me asking two questions:

Can common sense really be taught?

If it could be, how relevant might that be to steering to the future?

The issues I have with teaching common sense are:

1. Extremely vague meaning

My American Heritage Dictionary defines common sense as 'Native Good Judgement". Suffice it to say that each of these three words has a mind-boggling set of definitions and practices. Your idea of the social group does, of course, narrow the definition a lot. But then the size, diversity and all sorts of other considerations on the social group need addressing.

2. Very Loose Knowledge Set

Your example, the "trivial application" of the auto mechanic, does support your argument because this application has a defined volume of knowledge - incidentally, that's how humanity defines what is called a trade. Your words "Common sense implies that certain common relationships and related outcomes are predictable, and they are" is right on target for a trade and even the social group does not matter where a trade is concerned. On the other hand, common sense has no tight knowledge set

3. Is any aspect of the future open to being a trade? I think not for one simple reason:

- we understand something because someone has seen it before.

And when no one has seen the future, we have no way to define what we may want to teach.

In summary, How to relate something difficult to define (common sense) to something unknown (the future) is not clear to me from your essay.

I look forward to your comments.

Jonathan,

Play can be an important part of exchanging roles between instructor and receiver. Often I see children showing each other what they believe are better ways of doing things. For children, what are the traits of those who are the best of friends? They are interactive. I will read your essay regarding play, and I am sure I will find something that inspires me.

We may have met. I was supporting Air Force Research Laboratories from 2003 to 2004 regarding robotics projects to clean up unexploded ordinance (UXO). I traveled extensively and was in Pennsylvania. That sounds like the type of conversation I might have with someone. I don't remember the conversation, so it is more likely you met with someone else. James is probably the number one boy's name for anyone named Dunn.

James

Ajay Bhatla,

Thank you for providing inquisitive feedback.

quote: ...how relevant might that [teaching Common Sense] be to steering to the future?

To grow broad opportunities for Physicists, and to recruit young people to pursue careers in physics:

1) requires a broad capacity to consider and relate logic (mathematics, scientific method, critical thinking...)

2) broad business development must take place to support grants and related research (research is the first to get cut in suffering economies)

3) educational programs are currently funded to support Science, Technology, Engineering, Entrepreneurship, and Mathematics (STEEM), so that teaching Common Sense can easily fall within existing programs if a focused effort is made. This means that the efforts cited are implementable, and not just rhetoric.

4) to recruit students to "learn" to enjoy physics requires a system of continuous engagement (see Dr. Nader Vadiee's "Vertical Integration Pathway") so that the concepts of physics are incrementally introduced and relationally manageable. By this I mean, do NOT just introduce students to Black Holes and the Universe as simply emotional awe, that only smart people can think about. To also provide them with social and logical tools to articulate their ideas into a career pathway. The Common Sense tools provide teachers with the tools to share with students to interact with physics even at a very young age.

5) .... don't want to dwell on

quote: Can common sense really be taught?

Yes, but it will take implemented action to verify. Though the bases I believe is strong enough to acquire grants for implementing verification (assessments), the tools need to be firmed up into Educational Materials so they can be distributed to Teachers. Khan Academy is an initial partner being considered.

quote: 1. Extremely vague meaning [regarding dictionaries]

You are very correct in the Dictionary References providing a generalized nature of definitions resulting in multiple logical pathways of interpretation depending upon the context in which it is used.

I intentionally created a lexicon with word definitions that fall within public knowledge, but restricted the definitions and further defined them related to emotional, social, and logical communication processes.

The system of words are set up so their use does not produce contradictions. However, as other experts in sociology, psychology, philosophy ... become directors or otherwise provide works related to grant activities, I am sure the present structure will evolve to be more inclusive of broader considerations. Of significant importance is persons with specific disabilities and children. So child-centered professionals I am sure will produce additional valuable tools.

Self-Esteem is based in the skills needed by particular social groups. This is partly why the 501(c)3 structure was selected. The broad effort by "experts" requires monetary compensation. To develop the tools to teach Common Sense specific to specific social groups needs social group characterization. This requires time and money; and I cannot do everything, I am providing the seed and potting soil to get things going. The 501(c)3 is expected to evolve beyond myself and I will eventually be replaced by systems of diverse professionals.

I encourage any recognized professional to become a member of the UA-KiTS.com Board of Directors; whether or not this essay wins. This essay spawned development, but the teaching of Common Sense will continue regardless.

quote: 2. Very Loose Knowledge Set

I can only put just so much information in an "essay" before it becomes a book. Also, there is a concern about Trade Secrets related to the 501(c)3 and protecting IP in the interest of sustaining growth. Though the examples provided use of many of the relationships presented, the details become dry for use in an essay written for a general audience. Persons who have a keen interest are encouraged to become more involved.

quote: 3. Is any aspect of the future open to being a trade? I think not for one simple reason: - we understand something because someone has seen it before. And when no one has seen the future, we have no way to define what we may want to teach.

Very many of us anticipate the future and through Result Management ensure the Future becomes what we anticipated. Skills in Common Sense are required for good Program and Project Management. As we approach our anticipated results of our efforts, we often find better use of our resources for yet greater returns on our investments. Project Managers often predict the future and create related Statements of Work (SOW). This is how complex projects are built, by predicting the future by management. Competent Management requires useful skills in Common Sense.

Would you say it is easier to predict the future with, or without, applied Common Sense?

Would you rather enter a business initiative with a person who is irrational, or someone who demonstrates reliable use of common sense?

What group of people has a better chance of producing businesses that provide physics related occupations? Those with Common Sense, or those that are irrational.

What group of people will pursue careers in physics more often, those who are irrational or those with common sense?

...

These were trick questions. A person with strong skills in Common Sense at times makes irrational decisions based upon emotional or social pressures, or not carefully considered logic. Consider the Challenger explosion. But a person with well-developed common sense makes these errors less often. We ALL can benefit from stronger skills in applying common sense.

James,

A large part of the problem with the concept of common sense in today's world is that what might seem logical in one context, might not in another and as soon as you get away from a few core precepts, it just gets fuzzy. Personally I grew up on and continue to live on a family farm, mostly horses and cattle and I do feel I have some common sense. Of course, I also feel I'm stuck in the 19th century, in some aspects of my life.

Now with regards to your essay, it is a piece of writing and a professional writer would have to consider it hopelessly garbled. Common sense for a writer would be to develop some form of compelling narrative arc which draws the reader in and and carries them along. Like a lens, it should gather the required information and focus it on a specific point. Especially in this fast paced world, with many distractions, since common sense for a reader would be to skim over or put down a piece of writing which doesn't seem well organized, or the point of which is obvious.

Having read your responses in this and other entries, your are certainly an otherwise organized and thoughtful person and I can understand being frustrated with the way the world is run, yet sometimes, it isn't due to stupidity, culpability, or criminality. Sometime what seems logical and commonsensical in one context is simply off base in another. For instance, anyone living 500 years ago would consider it common sense the sun is a hot orange orb, moving across the sky and anyone thinking it was really the earth spinning the other direction either had their heads in the clouds, or had been drinking too much wine. A point I've made in some of the prior contexts, that time is not so much a vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past, seems quite commonsensical to me, but it is also reasonable for others to assume the geometry of spacetime is physically real, because so many well educated people believe it. So put on your common sense cap and decide which fits; Does the present move along a vector from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the world turns? How would common sense resolve that issue? If you agree with me, you find you have gone against not only Einstein and company, but the conceptual basis for the narrative effect on which history and thus civilization is based. To which you might say, of course, I am wrong!

That's the problem with common sense. It is based on our store of knowledge and so what we need to do is inform people as best as possible and let them make best decisions based on that knowledge, but given the amount of information out there.....Some people do find it commonsensical to retreat into a cocoon, such as that created by various political movements. Which is not intelligent.

Regards,

John Merryman

John,

quote: for instance, anyone living 500 years ago would consider it common sense the sun is a hot orange orb, moving across the sky and anyone thinking it was really the earth spinning the other direction either had their heads in the clouds, or had been drinking too much wine. A point I've made in some of the prior contexts, that time is not so much a vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past, seems quite commonsensical to me, but it is also reasonable for others to assume the geometry of spacetime is physically real, because so many well educated people believe it.

My definition of Common Sense is:

Common Sense = Self-esteem Logic Predicting Consequences

Self-esteem is generated within social groups. In a healthy group Respect is shared between members as they each learn and share useful information. What is useful in one group (Earth as the center of the Universe) does not translate completely to another group (quantum physicists). Though there will be some admiration (emotional) and appreciation (social) depending upon the situations. A physicist and the Earth is the center of the universe person are both certainly able to appreciate art, and the talents each might have. But bitterly disagree upon their perspectives of cosmology.

To "fit" within a social group of quantum physicists requires practiced experience in expressing common emotional, social, and communication processes. The knowledge set changes from one physicist to another; string theory, GR, Gravity Loops, Quantum Causality... To have self-esteem within a group, a member must be able to learn and share information that is "useful" for the related group. Therefore, a foundation of knowledge is required depending upon specific groups. Artists and Politicians may become extremely bored listening to banter concerning Axiom of Choice as it applies to the foundations of mathematics. Artists talking about types of art media might be equally boring to a physicist; not all.

So to develop Common Sense within a social group, depends upon what provides for Self-esteem within a social group so that a member is "useful" to the group.

A farm-hand is well versed in issues of the farm, and was taught the related logical relationships and consequences by their parents, and self-esteem reinforced by practiced experience and social engagement with other farm-hands.

Without Self-esteem relavent to a social group, a person will defer (and reasonably so) to those more experienced in the context of the social group. Arrogance (loathing of others) has no intention of sharing useful information, and often is deceptive to acquire a personal agenda outcome. Arrogant people in a social group are usually political (social/emotional) more than logically useful.

So this is more detail regarding how Common Sense is common to everyone; with self-esteem being relavent to social groups in which we want to become involved.

Teaching Common Sense (as I defined in the related lexicon) can allow for people to transition more smoothly from one social group to another, from one career to another, ... from one perspective to another.

James,

I certainly agree a group sensibility is necessary to function, but what might seem logical on one level, may not from another perspective.

Frequently what is necessary at ground level has to be consolidated the further up the ladder and that seems unworkable. Consider scientists and science writers. Trying to edit what has been painstakingly constructed often seems facile and stupid, but the writer has to translate for a broader audience.

We tend to think top down, but reality builds bottom up and top down is a consolidation process. Which is how our minds work, to distill a perspective from all the information. So even the process of developing a coherent thought introduces bias. Good and bad are not some cosmic dual between righteousness and evil, but the biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. So just as we make decisions by sorting through all the pros and cons, society often has to makes choices which seem negative from different points of view.

So, yes. Within a particular frame, there is a necessary common perspective, but there are multiple frames and when necessary, some prevail over others. Which isn't to say those that prevail are the best long run decision, because often what might seem criminal or stupid is a limited point of view which is simply gathering energy/information into its frame. Then the larger view might then view that frame as unworkable and shed it, or confine it.

Regards,

John

Mr. Dunn,

I've read your constructive, structured and humanly improving essay. It is challenging to organize basis for assertive humanistic cybernetics or organization. Black Sky Thinking shares with you the focus of reducing or disappearing corruption that seems to be a field of destruction. I admire your dedication to transform in structures and systems into solutions; also I admire your vision, eagerness and warmheartedly nature of creating fields of self-improvement. We can not avoid to be product of our experience and that is why extending our comprehension of other people's vision may turn us into more assertive. It is of extreme importance to understand the nature of the creators of the essays because like in your case it is very clear your creation has the deep purpose of extending in a rational way benefits for people to improve their life. Your essay clearly is an expression of yourself and not technological, approved and competitive scientific answer to win a contest; it is transparent your eagerness of real, assertive, applicable and on time solutions for the well-being of human kind.

One of the flows of science has been to reduce human being's nature to mere technological or scientific assertiveness. If we carefully pay attention to cosmos and what we know about it, life as structured, self-directed and improvable reality it seems to be only here in earth. With this thought comes out the understanding of the value of uniqueness. Admirable is that you as many other people, have experienced negative realities but you turned toward it with a creative, structured and improving reality answer based in the well-being of human kind.

I understand your term "common sense" like a substitute for a "clear, assertive and realistic comprehension of reality ". I hope to have the right interpretation of your term. In the experience of living abroad in different countries one realizes that "common sense" could have different basis or values that is why by reading all your organization in the essay I dare to interpretate it like "comprehension of reality".

Black Sky Thinking also understand the deep need of a feedback loop for human kind of their actions this that you express like graduated certification. Labeling people is a very common process in the technocrat society that was of deep help. As we move forward from this technofield toward a new fields of development, we can turn this certification tool into apersonal feedback loop. Most of human beings find difficult to receive a critic or a "no", we may be very subtle, gentle and careful of making this process. When a certification is not obtained, this could bring out a sense of lackness of value. We may just change the term certification for a feedback loop maybe but the system of making people aware of their actions is an OUGHT TO. I agree with this purpose with you.

Graduated certification for applying Common Sense and BST (Blacks Sky Thinking) value education because it reduces the need of correcting adults and of creating strict systems of control. In deed good education (personal values with knowledge) generate persons with less psychological issues who dedicate themselves into improvement, curiosity, creativity and intellectual interests. For this purpose is also necessary a field that provides opportunities to develop this goals.

I also share the focus of minimizing risks while efficiently and consistently producing systems that efforts toward predictable beneficial outcomes.

Your eagerness of effectiveness can be diminished when expressing other people's incapability of grasping "common sense". Let's better think on systems and fields of improvement and avoid pointing those who "we" could consider that lack of this ability. It is evident by your proposal that a wide range of interests that you have leaded you to provide an integral solution. An integral solution is never easy, expresable in short terms or appreciated. The human brain has to cut information and focus in specific things in order to succeed in the understanding of cosmos, this nature of the brain challenges our vision, focus and creation of systems that turn into complexity.

There is an evident need of creating a radically different economical system, we are not the only ones working on that, look at this:

Biomimicry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE-2rDZwMXA

also this city: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgSLOWrFFFs

Definitely as you kindly and structured expressed that you could include Black Sky Thinking in your projects receive a welcoming of creating a mutual improving relationship to create assertive solutions for human kind.

I appreciate your attention for topics that are fundamental in the search of modifying and improving reality.

Orenda

James,

Very interesting view on common sense. You seem to consider a lot of implications and ramifications, and even linked to a common sense test! Good luck with the contest!

Cristi

Orenda,

I appreciate the feedback.

Graduated Certification is potentially a harsh consideration. Like an IQ test is something most people will not attempt. Many IQ tests are a small aggregate of samples of questions that people with certain backgrounds would be exposed to. So a person that comes from a different background never being exposed to the "key words and tricky phrases" will score lower.

Emotional IQ is almost never assessed. Social IQ is almost never assessed. Only communication processes involving logic and memory. IQ tests are fun to take but they tend to be representative toward supporting our present school systems and not the needs of people broadly.

A nurturing mother of 6 children that all have grown to be well-respected in their respective communities will likely have skills in teaching emotional and social relationships that IQ Tests I have seen and taken do NOT at all address.

Art, Humanities, and Creativity in-general are an important part of (using a term I do not like to use without qualification) "IQ". Traditional IQ Tests are completely invalid assessments unless they are qualified as being only applicable to a specific group set based on age, demographics, and educational exposure. People are allowed to think that IQ scores represent something innate within themselves that cannot change. The more a person exposes themselves to the environment from which the IQ test is made, the higher the related testing scores are going to be. So IQ Tests are NOT representative of innate aspects of being human.

Conversely, graduated certification for the teaching of common sense scores a dozen different areas of broad human skills. A socially adept mother will likely score relatively high in related areas; while scoring lower in the logical complexity test areas. A scientist may tend to procrastinate and score lower in areas of social acumen, while obviously scoring well in the logical communication processes. Potentially, there will be people who can come to score 100 (not a percentage) in the related examination. As cited in the instructions, this means the test taker has demonstrated skills that exceed the usefulness of the assessment in those areas.

Other more advanced systems of relationships and perspectives will need to be developed if there is a desire to grow beyond the intentional limits of the assessments. This would be done most likely in areas of Self-Esteem because of a particular skill set that needs to be learned for engaging a particular social group. A scientist that wants to run for a political office for instance. Each dominant political group will have many common features, but there will be a collection of features that need to be practiced to engage effectively with each group; jargon, expressing certain relationships without exposing certain sensitivities...

I agree with you that the word Certification may have a negative social and emotional influence on many people. From my own background a certification is a motivating challenge for which a form of achievement can be derived. But considering life experiences of other people certification could represent another area of potential failure. "Certification" as an excessively-used word may make it difficult for certain people to engage themselves in the system.

For similar reasons "Black Sky Thinking" as 'words' has a similar stigma associated with the broadly perceived ineffectiveness of holistic endeavors.

The word "Study" is a sensitive word for those that are academically burned out; Academic PTSD. :.)

Though not as functionally descriptive, would "Learning to Teach Common Sense" be less imposing? The act of participating in the learning of common sense also engages others and self to learn common sense.

Your concept of wearable technology, what features do you propose? This may integrate well with monitoring for weak considerations in the form of a cell phone application. Something like a simplified interface for interacting with a project management software; i.e. what are some of the risks associated with what I am about to propose? Why is ...... reacting to my present situation by ....

I think we have opportunities for collaboration.

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

Hi James,

I'm working my way through the essays I promised I would read. My understanding of your essay is that you are suggesting that people in various stages of life and in various professions be given some assessment/self-assessment to see if they are actually competent in their field of study, in their profession, etc. I think this is a great idea and it would improve humanity -- if everyone is really competent at what they study/do/work society would obviously benefit.

My main criticism though is one of style in that you are calling this a "common sense" assessment. From what you write I think it would be better to call it an assessment of critical thinking based of logic/data/scientific method. In any case my impression was that this is what you were advocating -- checking if people did their jobs based on a logical/scientific analysis of data. The reason I object to "common sense" and would prefer the other term is that it used to be common sense that the Sun went around the Earth, it used to be common sense that the Earth was flat, it used to be common sense that if you shoot an arrow even in a vacuum it would eventually come to rest since this was its natural state of motion (also it was common sense that you couldn't have a vacuum since Nature abhorred vacua). But I *think* that your meaning of common sense and what I describe above (briefly) as a scientific/logic/data driven approach to things are similar.

Now while I agree that people should be assessed in terms of their competence -- good luck in actually getting them agree to allow you to do this. In my profession (university professor) there is no way professors would agree to such a thing even if it would ensure that they would thus be forced to stay current in the field in which they teach. The ugly fact is that many (but not all) professors decline in quality after tenure (their teaching becomes shoddy and out of date, they cease to publish, apply for grants, go to conferences, etc.). Thus they have a vested interest in *not* being assessed. And I think a similar thing can be said about a lot of professions.

Let me go into this a bit further with an example. In the past several there *has* been an assessment movement at US universities (at least at non-R1, more teaching oriented universities and colleges). The administrators at my university have made a big show that we need to assess the effectiveness of our teaching i.e. are the students learning what we say we are teaching them. This is fantastic idea. However, guess who has to actually do the work of assessment? Yep the professors who are being assessed (actually the assessment usually goes by department so the assessment is of a whole department so this can not be used against a particular faculty member during tenure review. So if you see a problem of the group being assessed making up their own assessment you have come to the same conclusion I did when I mentioned this to the administrators requiring this assessment. My suggestion was that in order for the assessment to mean anything and to be at least semi-objective that the administrators who wanted to assessment should be the ones to carry it out. The one problem with this is that if you do assessment properly it does take a lot of time and this is one thing universities administrators do not want to give -- time and work. Thus they give the assessment work to the faculty being assessed and only and idiot would assess themselves and say they were doing a bad job. In fact some professors are really honest and do a rigorous self-assessment and do find areas they are a bit deficient in. Their reward for this honesty? They are the ones picked on by the administrators to now make a change in what they do (all the time this is taking away from their teaching and research). In the end what they do is lower the standards of their course so the pass rates increase and now they have a "good" assessment.

Anyway I agree and like the idea that *everyone* should be tested periodically to see how they are doing in respect to their profession, but there is a lot of vested interest that would oppose implementing the such testing. But the point is still a good one.

Best,

Doug

Douglas Alexander,

I appreciate your review.

No, you started from a different perspective of the intents of teaching Common Sense.

The purpose is NOT to measure competence. Competence involves a broad range of techno-centric skills and systems of relationships specific to a position of professional "application". These details are most often learned on the job. Common Sense skills provide a better foundation from which to "build" these skill applications.

Common Sense are the primary tools for getting the work done within a social group. An individual person's Common Sense provides the means to acquire respect within a social group. Of the 10 or so areas of competency, each person will likely score high in a few areas and low in other areas. The assessments are not an overall evaluation; assessments are only used to provide study materials to build the weakest areas of Common Sense relative to a social group.

Evaluation scores are based in the application of skills relative to a social group in emotional, social, and logical communication relationships. The evaluations are intended to indicate the "POTENTIAL" to more effectively participate in a particular social group, but does NOT at all reflect competency. The "continuous improvement feedback" between actual results and educational materials provides the only link between materials and competency.

As a Certifying Organization, the intent is to always evolve continuous improvement as social groups evolve.

The purpose IS to measure a MINIMUM, and then GRADUATED levels of skills needed to become part of "a group" that shares respect for one another; useful exchanges of information. Logic and Predicting consequences moderates improvements so that a person can participate in the Group without providing statements that contradict themselves. Stating ones' self to be reliable and then procrastinating or being late is a contradiction.

And these skills of Self-Esteem specific to a group allow a person to more easily become part of different groups of their choosing without having to endure the significantly long processes of "reading the room" and related "trial and error".

Common Sense = Self-Esteem(group) Logic Predicting Consequences

Common Sense within a group is mutually moderated by Self-Esteem, logic, and predicting consequences.

A physicist in the time of Galileo with Common Sense would have perhaps built a foundation for the Church that God was the center of the universe and not the mythical gods attributed to Earth, Moon, and Sun. So in this way the Church could better deal with the new technologies and related relationships developed.

Common Sense is to make incremental changes in a way that contributes to mutual respect.

You pose an interesting business relationship, as a choice, Graduated Certification can become a requirement by people who want to better understand who they are hiring, and who they are retaining. Those with the capacity to better relate to their social group is a type of performance standard. Those without a minimum competence in applying Common Sense relative to their profession are less sought after for leadership positions. I'll have to add this to the business model.

Regarding School Accreditation and related Self-Assessment:

I'm familiar with the process. The Accreditation Agency tries to simultaneously enforce diversity in education and students graduating with the skills they need for employment.

However, a Trade School teaches skills, while Universities build brains to teach one's self.

"The Great Purpose of higher education is to build the brain to Efficiently teach one's self; to become an expert at anything Passionately pursued." ~James Dunn

There are over 1000 fields of study in Electrical Engineering. The same is true of other disciplines of engineering, business, art, music, politics ... Universities cannot provide certifications in all the different fields in which people become employed.

However, Common Sense is the relational tools that apply to almost everyone related to emotional, social, and logical communication processes.

Understanding HOW-TO develop respect within a social group is valuable for both the individual and the group.

The purpose of UA-KiTS.com is to off-load much of the assessment continuous improvements from the groups needing individuals with strong skills in certain areas. But realize, that many groups need members with "weak" skills in certain areas. Actually certain distributions. An out of work scientist would make a terrible candidate for janitorial position. How long would they be happy in that position. But if Monster.com had a tool to put in the distributions of the individual, they could search for related jobs they may never thought even existed that strongly relate to their persona of Common Sense for the related group.

Students graduating from High School can put in their Common Sense scoring and the most related jobs can come up without having to know the related keywords. The students can then read the skill sets desired and go to a related trade school, University, or community college to acquire the related functional skills.

If they have an interest in a particular field, the Common Sense scores needed in those fields can provide the individual with the areas of self-improvement that they need to develop to enter the related field successfully.

A group of experts in assessment in a particular field can produce an assessment for a fraction of the cost of someone already overburdened with their professional activities. Many groups share similar features that can be used as a beginning template from which to modify and build.