• [deleted]

  • Post #41

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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #44

    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.

    James,

    I applaud your intent and aims. I agree that the Georgina, Doug's etc views above are somewhat semantics but there is a good point to consider; Particularly in the UK the very common definition of 'common sense' is; "that which cannot be taught." So, while I understand your perspective, it is none the less valid that although you clearly know what you mean, and there are few other words or terms to describe it, most or at least many people won't understand it in the way you intend.

    Perhaps you should consider adding an additional descriptor to distinguish it from it's established usage; perhaps "predictive..." or "intuitive.." or "common sens-ibility" or anything appropriate just to distinguish it.

    I must also admit that I feel we may need to go further and deeper in revolutionising human education. Alice and I managed to escape the conveyor belt of mathematics when we noticed it heading into Dodgson's Wonderland. The best thing I then did was study Architecture. The first year is all about re-teaching us how to think. It's a revelation and I recommend it to all. Even Wittgenstein was bowled over seeing it it 2nd hand.

    One fundamental is '3 steps forward 2 steps back' as default mode. Testing then reviewing in overview. Organising complex evaluation and comparisons of and against multiple criteria is another, how to use of both lobes of the brain together (the whole is FAR greater than the sum of the parts), and learning how to identify and root out hidden assumptions intuitively. Tracing consequential paths is a critical one most simply don't apply. Thinking outside each box in sequence ('Russian Dolls') is also implicit. How to inspire, the 'scientific method' but with morality, selflessness, the hippocratic oath but not medically..

    I could go on. The fact is that could be simplified and packaged into teaching progressively from a young age. I try to show subtly in my essay as a sub plot the potential effects and results of thinking outside the 'Earth-centric reference frame'. An alien concept to most but the next great step on from the Copernican revolution. Rationalisation of the stupidities of QM emerges. Stupidities that will remain all the time we underutilise the vast potential of the quantum computers in our head. I just call it 'learning how to think'.

    Perhaps your work is a good and realistic first step. I can't see the teaching profession adopting new thinking that they themselves don't understand any more than physicists will adopt new physics. We must start somewhere, or try at least! I'm reminded of the 'Friends of Wisdom promoting teaching wisdom in universities. Few understand what they mean and they all define it differently. A clear message is task 1. Well done and keep it up. I hope you can read and like my own essay. Do comment or ask questions.

    Very best wishes

    Peter

    Peter,

    I like your model of incremental broad and ethical assessments during development. This is a common technique used in software engineering. Create a code segment and test its viability. Object-oriented coding. I hadn't thought about more broadly using this principle. I can see potential use in the teaching of common sense related to general problem solving skills. Thank you.

    Interesting that the Urban usage of the phrase "Common Sense" in Great Britain is so different to the definition provided by Oxford Dictionary.

    "Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters"

    However, you are quite right that up until my efforts "common sense" here in the United States was thought only to be taught by good families and hard knocks.

    My developments included Ethos (emotional), Pathos (social), and Logos (logical communications) to correlate the types of reasoning with intended outcomes. What is available for public viewing is a small part of the larger model that has evolved since this essay was first written.

    Previously, it was thought Common Sense could not be taught, this is the equivalent of a new technology; my original works.

    As of this Thursday and Friday I will be teaching my first workshop with the principles of teaching common sense incorporated into the coursework. I'm looking forward to comparing results as compared to the same materials I had previously taught. Additional metrics being monitored are student to student interactions and sustainability of student interactions after the workshop.

    "The Common Sense of eCommerce"

    Presently I am told to expect 10 to 15 participants and a Foundation staff member.

    The Foundation I am incorporating is moving to the next step.

    I have written a business model whitepaper to a philanthropic foundation in an attempt to both grow their influence and outreach while supporting the overhead needed by the UA-KiTS.com Foundation.

    Regardless of whether or not this essay wins the competition, the resulting effort is going public; as soon as this Thursday.

    Assessment will include a short questionnaire both before and after the workshop to capture related metrics to characterize the effectiveness of course materials presented. A follow-up questionnaire will be emailed to participants six months from now to capture their continued use of the materials presented.

    Here in the United States, well-recognized is the lack of common sense possessed by a large segment of our population. Also, courses based in Common Sense sound less threatening to non-traditional students.

    Everyone believes they are well-prepared with skills of common sense. Yet people procrastinate, become involved with DRAMA (useless emotional interactions with no hope of useful outcomes), sit in front of a television instead of pursuing public social activities with their children ...

    Common Sense can only be learned from practiced experience; it cannot be learned from just reading about it. Therefore, my teaching model has changed significantly and I am hoping it will also be much more fun for the participants.

      7 days later

      James,

      Time is growing short, so I am revisiting and rating.

      You said in your response, "Common Sense is Group-centric." I can not agree more. My "common good" contention in Looking Beyond and Within is similar in meaning. The common good motivation and the concepts of using your brain (like Einstein) and looking beyond short-term gain is my ingredient for "steering" success.

      Jim

      10 days later

      Dear James,

      Your essay in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt lifts very important philosophical problem of "Common Sense". You well prove extreme importance of a subject for modern Humanity and its future. I understand you very well, it is possible because I also the engineer - electrician and perfectly I know that such "safety" and value of human life. You give very interesting ideas which show your deep critical reason and spirit. The "Common Sense" problem is very important today for science and society. Thanks to your essay I went deep into history of philosophy of common sense, in particular into history Scottish "philosophies of common sense".

      Relevance of philosophy of common sense is caused also need of the solution of an old problem of justification of knowledge, a demand of epistemological potential of Common Sense in consciousness philosophies, the solution of a scientific problem of consciousness. The Humanity any more isn't able to afford to ignore in a nuclear century basic instructions of the common sense, having system character. In too time a phenomenon of common sense still deeply unreflected

      in philosophy. Also it is a big problem. Solutions of a difficult problem of consciousness completely is in harmony with installations (principles) of Common Sense. The modern scientific picture of the world has to include limit meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl), so the primordialny principles of Common Sense. Your essay and your ideas extremely important and on the contest subject.

      Excellent appeal for Humanity to action for the maximum overcoming of existential risks and more reliable steering the Future: "Take the Common Sense self-assessment to see for yourself if there are certain areas you might want to better develop. " Yes, Philosophy and Ethics should be introduced widely in the educational process, including the Philosophy of Common Sense. High score.

      New Generation tells us: "We start the path " .

      We must find the will for the future of our children and grandchildren!

      Hope-our compass earth... Common Sense and Great Common Cause.

      I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

      I wish you good luck!

      All the Best,

      Vladimir

      5 days later

      Hi James,

      The presentation seemed a bit rough, but you've presented some interesting ideas in this entry. I think assessing common sense is probably a difficult prospect; inattentiveness, inexperience or simply a lack of what is now basic knowledge can be construed as a lack of common sense. I would be interested to see what your course and certification entail.

      I was particularly interested in your description of instructors and receivers of information. I've had ideas about delivering education that involves more of a peer-to-peer structure that have some features in common with your discussion their. I'm hopeful that a system of education that places student and teachers on more equal footing would give people greater cause to practice respect and compassion.

      Let me know if you'd like further feedback or to discuss any ideas. Thanks again for your comments on my essay entry.

      Cheers,

      Toby

        • [deleted]

        • Post #50

        What I have tried for the first time in a workshop on teaching introductory eCommerce, is to compare conventional teaching to that of Refereed Debate. Many participants did not have internet access and were artists exploring the potential of marketing their products online. Of the 14 only 5 had somewhat developed skills in working with computers.

        I presented the basic materials the first day in a traditional class setting with hands-on browser experience, and provided a large variety of information for them to explore after class.

        Out of 14 adult participants, only two indicated they had independently explored the material and worked on their website since the last class. The workshops were 3 hours, and a week apart.

        The next class I explained a method to explore new concepts more actively; Refereed Debate. I set up myself and two participants in Refereed Debate; similar to a judicial court. I explained the rolls of each and the limitations of what the Referee was allowed to say. The three of us presented as we rotated the position of Referee until all three had a chance to act as Referee. Each person was limited to 5 minutes to express themselves to provide sustainable support for online marketing of a specific piece of artwork that happened to be in the room.

        The remainder of the workshop, I divided the class into groups of three. I chose the initial referees based upon their demonstrated skills in using a computer. This ensured a certain amount of distributed computer expertise. I gave everyone the same common goal regarding marketing online.

        The Referee is not allowed to guide presentation. The only comments the Referees were allowed to make were if something was said that was not logical, words were used where their meaning was out of context, the connection of relationships to achieve the goal were not logical because of missing information (gaps), or if other relationships that could be related are not being exposed.

        The Referee writes down the faulty logic and gaps for each participant presenting, and writes down what is the best information presented.

        What happened is that the first day of the workshop, only two participants interacted, everyone else was either quiet or asked a question but did not attempt to help others.

        On the second day, the participants were laughing and arguing. I learned I also needed to have a flag to indicate when emotional issues popped up to call me over to work things out.

        After 2 rotations of referee, the referee's rotated to new groups and the process repeated.

        All the participants recognized each other in a personal way by the end of the class.

        This is too early to tell if that was related to Respect, and how that affects learning uptake. But it is encouraging.

        James,

        Thanks. I wish your project well. I hoe you also become more ambitious about teaching different ways of thinking, to find and drop assumptions and better analyse complex issues and 2nd and further stage consequence. I hope my essay shows the success of that but it seems to have polarised views (and scores!). It seems most still consider symptoms not fundamental driving cause.

        On that matter I'm disappointed yours, which doesn't, hasn't attracted more attention and higher scoring, I'm applying mine now which should help (I hope you'll do the same for mine if you haven't yet).

        Very best wishes.

        Peter J

        Write a Reply...