--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:43 AM > Subject: Re: Girls more confident of success > > > > > > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just checked sample SAT tests, and they didn't have just a choose the > > > definition section. Half of the sections were analyzing text; > > > > Same spectum of ability. > > > > >the other > > > half were vocabulary related. > > > > i.e. memorization. > > > >The vocabulary related were either insert a > > > word in a sentence or A:B as C:D, given A, B, C, choose D. > > > > memorization > > > > >I always did > > > this analytically > > > > explain how you discovered logicaly the correct answer based on knowledge > of > > systems and the way in which that system worked, and then applied that > > knowledge reativly to achieve the correct answer. > > That's a good question. As Doug has pointed out, language is a system. I > like to think of the metaphor of idea space where the words both defines > the space and is embedded in the space. If one includes math as a > language, there is a strong arguement that there are no ideas apart from > language. Indeed most people who state "I have a great idea, I just can't > put it into words" actually have a vauge idea they think is great, that may > even have the potential to be great, but isn't fleshed out.
Sorry, but your just wrong. And the statment seems very predjudiced to me as well. Some people simply do not think in words. They have to translate their thoughts to words. Your statments sugges to me that you have little understanding for how the mind works. Or what information is, or... anything. But that would not be fair. I don't understand how people who think -in language- process information either. All I ask is the same courtesy. Fact is. I, and others like me, do not think in language, saying that we think in "pictures" might be a good start at an explination, but that just begs the question, "why not simply describe the picture". It's abstractions that we are using, devoid of language or any form or symbolism (including pictures although some of it may be visionary in nature). Pure Ideas. pure thought unhindered by the bounds of symbolic representation. The fact that you can't understand this does not make it any less so. > > basicaly I am saying that you must have had root words or that ever so > > empathic abilty of language association based on memeorized components. > Sory > > but best guessing from this information is not fit the definition of > > "analytically" used in this context. Reference Websters all you want BTW, > it > > won't change ground truth, only how ground truth is described. > > >when it wasn't obvious from the first second. When it was > > > self evident, the thought process was too fast to analyze. > > > i.e. you had it memorized. > > But, there were many time when it wasn't self evident. During those times, > I used techniques other than recall of things I memorized by rote. You just can't seem to get past the seperation of the ideas of memorization and rote memorization. One describes a subset of the other. > When I > remember words in context, I have a feel for where they are in idea space, i.e. you have memorized the word and probabilities associated with the word. > just as when I remember various tricks in solving physical problems I > recall in context. Same deal. It's not the same as ~understanding~ the system. > I know very precisely what the dividing line between easy to remember and > hard to remember is for me. The same for everyone. > It depends on whether there is a reason for > something being what it is. Phone numbers are hard for me to remember. > There is no reason for Bill's phone number to be 983-1437 and Sue's to be > 983-8753. It just is. It took me about 4 years for me to remember my > sister's phone number, after calling her weekly during that time. > But, during the time I kept on looking up my sister's phone number, I had > tremendous inducement to memorize it. I had to get the address book every > time I called, it wasn't always where it belonged, etc. Yet, it was hard > for me to remember. > > There are other examples of this. I can forget the name of someone I've > known for years. I can remember things people I've met, but I cannot > recall their name. There is a different process involved. There sure is, in most people there is a whole chunck of your brain in the lower left side devoted to words and languge recal. > Why are you sure the process of remembering words in context is simple > rote memorization without at least addressing these data that suggests that > it isn't? Once again you keep throwing in the word "rote" where I am not. Memorization is memorization whether it was by rote or familiarity. > If it were, why is it easier to remember the meaning of words > than phone numbers? Once again becouse there is a whole part of your brain devoted to it. See : "Overcomeing Dyslexia" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375400125/104-2153722-3883909?v=glance ===== _________________________________________________ Jan William Coffey _________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
