squeakland August 2007

squeakland@lists.squeakfoundation.org

27 participants
31 discussions

Re: [Squeakland] the non universals
by Alan Kay 17 Aug '07

17 Aug '07

Hi David -- I'm not pessimistic. If I were, then I would pursue other ventures. I'm just thinking like a scientist (which is trying to figure out a near version of how things actually are). If you look closer, I think you will find that I'm being quite even-handed. Bush and his administration (among many others) think scientists are pessimists because they don't make up stories "that are so nice they must be true" as most people do, but instead are skeptical (not the same as pessimistic at all) and try to be "realistic" (as science thinks of that term), and are certainly optimistic, since they think they can uncover mysteries and make models of important things in the universe that have baffled humans for hundreds of thousands of years. There's a certain amount of arrogation (and some plain arrogance) in science, but not a lot of pessimism. >While for the next generation primary (K-6) teachers may be a lost >cause, what I want to understand is why you (Alan) don't find large >numbers of secondary (grades 7 - 12/13) math and science teachers >becoming advocates and allies of the reforms you are proposing. If mathematics shares some traits with language and muscular learning (and there is evidence it does), then the big disaster is in K-6. 7-12 has many of its own problems, judging both from what I've read and from participating in STEM workshops in many parts of the US this summer. Most of the 7th and 8th grade teachers we worked with were retreads from non math and non science teaching. The simplest generalization is that almost none of them showed any heuristic sense and aim for math of any kind. They knew a few facts but did not know how to think about even what they could remember. There is a wider range in high school teachers, and we found more than a few percent (maybe 10% to 20%) who could follow the relationships between familiar ways of looking at things and other ways of looking at the same underlying ideas. This is better and lots could be done with these teachers. This is not a high enough percent to make big changes but it would be a good start if the system would allow the goals and methods to be different. Of course, this is far from a scientific survey .... >1. Are the math and science teachers not aware that calculus is a >'powerful idea'? Not in the sense that Seymour uses the term. This is partly because almost no math and science teachers in HS were ever practitioners, and most were never math or science majors. Some may have majored in "math education" etc., but there is a huge qualitative difference there. Remember that most HS science is done without calculus (because it is still an optional AP subject that is taken usually in the last year of HS). Also, there is the interesting survey result which I sent out earlier this morning which indicates that 93% of the teachers in the system like their jobs. This is quite incompatible with any real understanding of math and science. >2. If they are, are they not sufficiently fluent in it ... I think they are indeen not sufficiently fluent in it, especially in the "what it actually is" sense (as opposed to "this particular way"). > to understand >that their current teaching method (whatever that is) is not engaging >and developing nearly as many pupils as have the potential to get it, >enjoy it and use it? This is strongly combined with the standards, SAT, and AP criteria to make the teachers who do have some sense of other ways to feel completely trapped in HS. But it's not just the teaching methods, it's the actual form of the knowledge for learners of mathematics and science. >3. Or is there some other reason, such as suspicion of new methods, >waiting for something better, or insufficient time after concentrating >on basic numeracy? Sure, and etc. Pretty much everything in American High Schools has high levels of trying to reteach virtually all of what the kids were supposed to have learned in the earlier grades. Hence, the need to look earlier for solutions. Couple this with the difficulty of learning new outlooks once you have already committed to outlooks that are not so fruitful, and the earlier grades are the place to work on. >The reason for the question is my big worry, inspired by your original >post: if Papert's ideas don't engage secondary school math teachers, >they have few other advocates left. There is no back door to get >around these gatekeepers. That is one of the big problems, amongst a dozen others. Cargo cults are difficult to reform once they get going. But what if the secondary math teachers complained loudly? I don't think they are in any decision process that I can find. Cheers, Alan ------------ At 08:23 AM 8/16/2007, David Corking wrote: >Alan, > >I am afraid I cannot yet share your pessimism (if that is indeed what >you intended to convey in your earlier posts) > >On 8/16/07, Alan Kay wrote: > > > Any one fluent in mathematics can recognize this (but it took a Papert to > > first point it out). But, virtually no one without fluency in mathematics > > can recognize this. And surveys have shown that less than 5% of Americans > > are fluent in math or science. Many of the 95% were able to go through 16 > > years of schooling and successfully get a college degree without attaining > > any fluency in math or science. > >I am no historian, but I would like to guess that 5% is quite a large >number compared to previous centuries, and these fluent mathematicians >should be heavily overrepresented among secondary school math and >science teachers. I concede that such a person will be rare among >primary school teachers (excepting those who frequent squeakland.org >of course) > >I hope, perhaps optimistically, that most high schools and >universities across the world teach 19th century applied math (I don't >know - I only went to one or two of each - and one of those high >schools taught a kind of dusty tedious rote algebra, without ever even >hinting that applied math was a much wider, richer and more >interesting field.) > >I was wrong to point to the purpose of universities - individual >university teachers are more important - and those who are interested >in teaching students, I would argue, aim to nurture creative and >powerful thought. I really hope they did so for the math and science >teachers passing through their halls. > >While for the next generation primary (K-6) teachers may be a lost >cause, what I want to understand is why you (Alan) don't find large >numbers of secondary (grades 7 - 12/13) math and science teachers >becoming advocates and allies of the reforms you are proposing. > >So perhaps I will attempt a better phrasing of my question: > >1. Are the math and science teachers not aware that calculus is a >'powerful idea'? > >2. If they are, are they not sufficiently fluent in it to understand >that their current teaching method (whatever that is) is not engaging >and developing nearly as many pupils as have the potential to get it, >enjoy it and use it? > >3. Or is there some other reason, such as suspicion of new methods, >waiting for something better, or insufficient time after concentrating >on basic numeracy? > >The reason for the question is my big worry, inspired by your original >post: if Papert's ideas don't engage secondary school math teachers, >they have few other advocates left. There is no back door to get >around these gatekeepers. > >David

1 0

Re: [Squeakland] the non universals
by Alan Kay 17 Aug '07

17 Aug '07

Hi David -- Someone once asked Mohandas Gandhi what he thought of Western Civilization, and he said he "thought it would be a good idea!" Similarly, if you asked me what I thought of University Education, I would say that "it would be a good idea!". >There seems to me a desire among educators to help as many children >and young adults as possible make the leap from arithmetic to geometry >and calculus, from literacy to literary analysis, or indeed from >melody to harmony. So where is the difficulty? A lack of proven >agreed teaching methods, a perception of elitism, or the competing >desire we all feel to make sure everyone leaves school with basic >literacy and numeracy? My perception of your first sentence is very different than yours. Most educators in K-8 do not seem to know anything about calculus and precious little about geometry or algebra (and their knowledge of arithmetic is rule-based not math-based) so I don't see whatever desires they might espouse about these progressions as having much substance. I do think that one is likely to get much better instruction and coaching from music teachers and sports coaches -- in no small part because they are usually fluent practitioners, and do have some real contact with the entire chain of meaning and action of their subjects. I don't have deep direct scientific knowledge of the nature of the difficulties, just thousands of encounters with various educational systems around the world and educators over the last 35+ years. So I could have just been continually unlucky in my travels.... In the early 80's I went to Atari as its Chief Scientist to try to get some of Papert's and my ideas into consumer electronics. The Atari 800 and especially the 400 were tremendous computers for their price, and Brian Silverman made a great version of Logo to go on these machines. (There were also Logos on most of the other 8-bit micros.) And, there was a Logo-vogue for a time, both in the US and in the UK. Many early adopter teachers got Atari's or Apple IIs in their classrooms and got their students started on it. This was exciting until examined closely. Essentially none of the teachers actually understood enough mathematics to see what Logo was really about. And for a variety of reasons Logo gradually slid away and disappeared. We should look a bit at three different kinds of understanding: rote understanding, operational understanding, and meta-understanding. If we leave out the majority of teachers who don't really understand math in any strong way, we still find that the kinds of understandings that are left are not up to the task of being able to see the meaning and value of a new perspective on mathematics. For example, it is possible to understand calculus a little in the narrow form in which it was learned, and still not be able to see "calculus" in a different form (even if the new way is a stronger way to look at it). Real fluency in a subject allows many of the most powerful ideas in the subject to be somewhat detached from specific forms. This is meta-understanding. For example, the school version of calculus is based on a numeric continuum and algebraic manipulations. But the idea of calculus is not really strongly tied to this. The idea has to do with separating out the similarities and differences of change to produce and allow much simpler and easier to understand relationships to be created. This can be done so that the connection between one state and the next one of interest is a simple addition. Actual continuity can be replaced by a notion of "you pick and then I pick" so that non-continuities don't get seen. This other view of calculus as a form of calculation was used by Babbage in his first "difference engines" because a computing machine that can do lots of additions for you can make this other way to look at calculus very practical and worthwhile. The side benefit is that it is much easier to understand than the algebraic rubrics. If we then add to this the idea of using vectors (as "supernumbers") instead of regular numbers, we are able to dispense with coordinate systems except when convenient, and are able to operate in multiple dimensions. All of this was worked out in the 19th century and quite a bit was adopted enthusiastically by science and is in main use today. To cut to the chase, Seymour Papert (who was a very good mathematician) was one of the first to realize that this kind of math (called "vector differential geometry") fit very well into young children's thinking patterns, and that the new personal computers would be able to manifest Babbage's dream to be able to compute and think in terms of an incremental calculus for complex change. Any one fluent in mathematics can recognize this (but it took a Papert to first point it out). But, virtually no one without fluency in mathematics can recognize this. And surveys have shown that less than 5% of Americans are fluent in math or science. Many of the 95% were able to go through 16 years of schooling and successfully get a college degree without attaining any fluency in math or science. This is not a matter of intelligence at all, but is more of a "two cultures" phenomenon. So I am not able to agree with this sentence of yours: >This barrier is puzzling to me, as the key gatekeepers in education >(teachers, head teachers, inspectors, government education >departments) are products of the university system, which seems to me >to exist to propagate and build on the hard ideas (greek math, >relativity, quantum theory, sociology, musical harmony ... ) It is possible to learn about these ideas in university (and outside of university), but I don't know of any universities today whose goal it is to invest its graduates with fluency in these ideas or any other powerful ideas. That is, the concept of a general education for the 21st century that should include these ideas doesn't seem to be in any American university I'm familiar with. >If Logo, Etoys and OLPC can teach calculus to 10-year-olds, and >calculus is essential to every engineering craft, and teachers love >encouraging students' creativity, why are so many schools teaching >pupils to use word processors instead? The problem is that Logo, Etoys and OLPC can't teach calculus to 10 year olds. The good news is that adults who understand the subject matter can indeed teach calculus to 10 year olds with the aid of Logo, Etoys and OLPC. If you put a piano in a classroom, children will do something with it, and perhaps even produce a "chopsticks culture". But the music isn't in the piano. It has to be brought forth from the children. And the possibilities of music are not in the children, but right now has to be manifested in the teachers and other mentors. (It took several centuries to develop keyboard technique, and much longer than that to invent and develop the rich genres of music of the last 6 centuries.) Math and science were difficult to invent in the first place (so Rousseau-like optimism for discovery learning is misplaced), and both subjects have been developed for centuries by experts. Children need experts to help them, not retreaded social studies teachers. One of the goals of 19th century education was to teach children how to learn from books. This was a great idea because (a) oral instruction is quite inefficient (b) you can get around bad teachers (c) you can contact experts in ways that you might not be able to directly (especially if they are deceased) (d) you can self-pace (e) you can employ multiple perspectives on the subject matter (f) you are not in the quicksand of social norming, etc. A small percentage of children still are able to learn from books, and similar small percentages of children can and do learn powerful ideas by themselves without much adult aid. But since general education is primarily about helping to grow citizens who can try to become more civilized, the big work that has to be done is with those who are not inclined to learn powerful ideas of any kind. Best wishes, Alan At 04:18 AM 8/15/2007, David Corking wrote: >On 8/13/07, Alan Kay wrote: > > > The non-built-in nature of the powerful ideas on the right hand list > > implies they are generally more difficult to learn -- and this seems to be > > the case. This difficulty makes educational reform very hard because a very > > large number of the gatekeepers in education do not realize these simple > > ideas and tend to perceive and react (not think) using the universal left > > hand list ..... > >Do you mean primary and secondary education? > >This barrier is puzzling to me, as the key gatekeepers in education >(teachers, head teachers, inspectors, government education >departments) are products of the university system, which seems to me >to exist to propagate and build on the hard ideas (greek math, >relativity, quantum theory, sociology, musical harmony ... ) > >However, teachers have said to me, "Whatever happened to those >turtles that were so popular when I was in school?" > >There seems to me a desire among educators to help as many children >and young adults as possible make the leap from arithmetic to geometry >and calculus, from literacy to literary analysis, or indeed from >melody to harmony. So where is the difficulty? A lack of proven >agreed teaching methods, a perception of elitism, or the competing >desire we all feel to make sure everyone leaves school with basic >literacy and numeracy? > >If Logo, Etoys and OLPC can teach calculus to 10-year-olds, and >calculus is essential to every engineering craft, and teachers love >encouraging students' creativity, why are so many schools teaching >pupils to use word processors instead? > >Puzzled, David >_______________________________________________ >Squeakland mailing list >Squeakland(a)squeakland.org >http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland

2 1

Re: [Squeakland] Squeakland Digest, Vol 52, Issue 10
by John Maxwell 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

Bill Kerr wrote: >> In his dissertation on the history of the Dynabook John Maxwell asks >> "what is a powerful idea, anyway?" and also argues that there has >> been a decline of powerful idea discourse I don't know that I argued that there is an overall decline (though there may be)... my point was that the powerful idea discourse -- the "non-universals" -- is just pathologically divorced from discussions of IT in education. So Web2.0 gets talked about for its own sake, as do office productivity and web research. But the core orientation that people like Kay and Papert advocated has been lost in the ensuing din. > However, I'm > also left feeling a bit unsure of the status of the "non > universals" list, > eg. how complete is it? have people argued about it and disputed it? I think the non-universals are by their very nature disputed and disputable, and incomplete. They originate with people, and are thereby politically situated and charged. They require an active cultural committment. The dispute over evolution is such an interesting case: here is an extremely powerful idea, the implications of which are still being worked out, and this is fundamentally threatening to all sorts of people, on levels which are deeply and historically embedded and which take centuries to sort themselves out. Where I end up is that all the stuff about "how people learn" is kind of beside the point compared with the curricular importance of powerful ideas. This is the real value of education. But it's politically safer to do work on learning styles and assessment methodologies than to focus on the importance of something like evolution in the curriculum. - John Maxwell Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing Simon Fraser University jmax(a)sfu.ca

1 0

Re: [Squeakland] the non universals
by Alan Kay 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

OK, a few more minutes ... At 08:05 AM 8/15/2007, Bill Kerr wrote: >hi alan, > >Thanks for extensive clarification of the items which I had left >question marks on > > From what you say the "non universals" group originates from you > (!) which sort of explains why I couldn't find other references to > it on the net Gathering the behaviors that can scientifically be claimed to be universals is what requires diligent work by experts, since literally thousands of cultures need to be perused -- and a fair amount of experimentation with early childhood behaviors is critical. Once, gotten we can easily claim that opposites (like writing and reading) are not universal. Deductive math and model based science are also easy. As is "equal rights", etc. >I have used your lists at a few meetings and it has provoked a >response of sorts. On the one hand some people say the "non >universals" is an interesting list. However, I've also noticed some >reluctance or inability to discuss the items on the list in any real >detail or to discuss the implications for the formal education >system. ie it seems to come at people from left field It requires some "perspective and knowledge" (which was what education used to be correlated with) to do the discussion. E.g. if one is not fluent in math and/or science it is difficult to understand just how qualitatively different are the modern versions of these. Most educational reform stalls in large part from the below threshold educations of the adults in the system. For most people, most powerful ideas come at them from left field. >In his dissertation on the history of the Dynabook John Maxwell asks >"what is a powerful idea, anyway?" and also argues that there has >been a decline of powerful idea discourse Well, "powerful ideas" is a nice metaphor that Seymour made up to heighten people's understanding (and the significance) of the relatively few and rare inventions that have made huge differences in how humans meet and think about the world. It is normal behavior to accommodate to what is present (especially what one was born into) and so most people think of the powerful ideas as part of normal, and since most Americans have not traveled in a way that gets them to appreciate the wide range of situations that humans are in around the world, they completely miss the wonder and mystery of "better intellectual architectures". This is why there are so few scientists (because most people take things as they seem and completely miss what deeper curiosity and better methods can find out). >What I'm noticing in educational discussion groups, blogs etc. on >the web of late is much talk about "web 2.0", "school 2.0" but this >tends to take place outside of a framework that maybe there are >powerful ideas that really do have to be taught in some way. > >You do say that the major stakeholders don't get it. What I see >there is curriculum frameworks being used as blunt instruments of >control. I'm suggesting, too, that many of the "radicals", who >describe themselves as "web 2.0" are not getting it either. Most of this is just a cargo cult. >In this context I like the idea of your list of "non universals" and >John Maxwells' idea of the need for more powerful idea discourse. >However, I'm also left feeling a bit unsure of the status of the >"non universals" list, eg. how complete is it? have people argued >about it and disputed it? Neither list is complete. But the important property of the universals list is that most the items are well vetted. The importance of my non-universal list is just that 5 or 7 items are the most important changes that humans have made in their 200,000 years on the planet (and most of these came very recently (even agriculture)). What more do people need to start thinking with? What more arguments about modern science need to be made? (And if they do need to be made, then what new kind of argument would work?) In other words, if the items on my list are ignored then it really doesn't matter much what else could be on the list. For example, the notion that there are "powerful ideas" could be the number one powerful idea, since it should lead to trying to understand powerful ideas, and to trying to find more of them. >I could think of some non universals / powerful ideas that are not >on your list, eg. Darwinian evolution, computer-human symbiosis for >starters ... Sure. There are lots (and they should be paid attention to). But certainly Darwinian Evolution (and a lot of other things fall under Science), etc. Computer-human symbiosis falls under the larger topics of how human thinking can be changed by the use of media (for better or for worse), etc, For a short list, it's best to use the biggies. Similarly, if we listed every built-in human trait (especially the zillions of bad ones), the list would be too long for any discussion purposes. >I'm also curious about its connection with using computers in >learning. Clearly etoys and logo can be used to assist teaching some >of those concepts in constructionist fashion, esp maths and science. >But for others I don't see a close connection at the moment (eg. >equal rights, democracy) - although the OLPC project is becoming a >part of that. Some music needs to be sung by human voices, and the best instruments in the world won't help (and will usually detract). Similarly, some theatrical expressions have to be done directly in person live, and will be diminished by inserting even high resolution media. Similarly, even the wondrous nature of mathematics often is too visible so it can obscure what's most interesting about what is being described. We are talking about human thinking and perspective, not computers here. However, consider this wonderful phrase from Marshall McLuhan "You can argue about a lot of things with stained glass windows, but Democracy is not one of them!" He meant that not just non-visual oral language, but only written, even printed language was disembodied and abstract enough to handle the critical issues and subtleties of this discourse. This itself is a powerful insight and a powerful idea that most adults in the world today have no notion of, and most would find it almost crazy. In other words, as Neil Postman liked to point out, the relationship between human thought and the languages/media used to form and express it is not a separated one, but is a non-linear ecology. Dropping something like TV into a society is like introducing rabbits into Australia. Not really thinking about computing and networking as new kinds of rabbits for good and ill can lead (and has led) to disastrous effects already. On the other hand, geniuses (like Montesorri, Papert, Bruner, McLuhan, Engelbart, etc.) who have thought about how environments of any kind condition "normal" and thus much of human thought and behavior have come up with very powerful and positive ways to use new and old environments to help humans more successfully struggle with their less well fitted internal behavior patterns. The basic approach here is to hold focus on what is really important, and to design new media and environments to help people learn what is important. As Seymour pointed out long ago, not even in the educational swamps of America do they use the phrase "paper based education" since it is patently ridiculous. But because people don't understand computers (and because magical thinking is one of the human universals) any new technology is treated as a talisman -- and they have no trouble in generating phrases like "computer based education" or "computer based curriculum" or "web based learning" etc. This is also cargo cult behavior. Most people "take the world as it seems" as I mentioned above, and so they completely miss most of the important properties and issues. This is why having general discussions about powerful ideas often leads nowhere. (And most discussions on the web similarly get nowhere -- opinion gets exchanged, but opinions have always been exchanged for 200,000 years with nothing much happening. The concatenation of opinions almost never leads to a better set of ideas -- this is a big bug in "web myth" and "collective behavior myths" in general. This is because the opinions in order to be understood have to share quite a bit of the same outlook, but progress usually comes from big changes in outlook. What we need are not more opinions and endless discussions, but more hooks to find stronger outlooks (aka "powerful ideas"). Cheers, Alan >-- >Bill Kerr ><http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/>http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/ > > >On 8/14/07, Alan Kay <<mailto:alan.kay@squeakland.org> >alan.kay(a)squeakland.org> wrote: >Hi Bill -- > >There are various sources for "universals" on the net and off. Quite >a bit more has been found out about these since the days of Lorenz >and Tinbergen. One of the several fields that studies these as >scientifically as possible is called "NeuroEthology" and there are a >number of good books on the subject. T.G.R. Bower was one of the >first to study very young humans specifically. An ancillarly field >that has appeared in the last few decades is called "bio-behavior", >and there also a number of illuminating books there. > >I picked some of the "non-universals" that I thought were important >(and some particularly to contrast items in the universal list). > >To answer your question marks ... > >"Theory of Harmony" is kind of like "Deductive Abstract Mathematics" >in that most traditional cultures have some form of counting, adding >and subtracting -- and some make music with multiple pitches at once >(as did Western Culture before 1600). But the notion of harmony >before 1600 was essentially as a byproduct of melodies and voice >leading rather than a thing in itself in which chords have the same >first class status as melodic lines. How and why this appeared is >fascinating and is well known in music history. > >Some of the most interesting composers in the Baroque period >(especially Bach) tried to make both the old and the new schemes >work completely together. Bach's harmonic language in particular was >an amazing blend of harmonies and bass lines with voice leading and >other contrapuntal techniques (quite a bit of his vocabulary is >revealed in his harmonized chorales (some 371 or 372 of them)). That >these two worlds are very different ways of looking at things is >attested to by a wonderful piece by Purcell "The Contest Between >Melodie and Harmonie". > >As with "Greek Math", history doesn't seem to have any record of a >separate and as rich invention of a harmonic theory. So it is really rare. > >"Similarities over Differences" was to contrast with the standard >processes of most nervous systems of most species to be more >interested in "differences over similarities" (which is listed on >the universal side). At most levels from reflexes to quite a bit of >cognition, most similarities are accommodated and normalized while >differences to the normalizations have a heightened significance (of >"danger" or "pay attention"). > >Paying attention to differences is good for simple survival but >makes it hard to think in many ways because it leads to so many >cases, categories and distinctions -- and because some of the most >important things may have disappeared into "normal" (in particular, >things about oneself and one's own culture). So we unfortunately are >much more interested in even superficial differences between humans >and cultures and have a very hard time thinking of "the other" as >being in the same value space as we are.... > >Part of the invention of modern math by the Greeks was their desire >to get rid of the huge codexes of cases for geometry and arithmetic. >This led to many useful abstractions which could be used as lenses >to see things which looked different to normal minds as actually the >same. For example, the Greek idea that there is only one triangle of >each shape (because you can divide the two short sides by the long >one to make a standard triangle of a given shape). This gets rid of >lots of confusion and leaves room to start thinking more powerful >thoughts. (The Greeks accomplished the interesting and amazing feat >of using normalization to separate similarities and differences but >paid attention to the similarities.) Calculus is a more subtle and >tremendously useful example of separating similarities and >differences. Convolution theory is yet more subtle ... > >One way to think of my chart is that a lot of things we correlate >with "enlightenment" and "civilization" are rather un-natural and >rare inventions whose skills require us to learn how to go against >many of our built in thought patterns. I think this is one of the >main reasons to have an organized education (to learn the skills of >being better thinkers than our nervous systems are directly set up for). > >History suggests that we not lose these powerful ideas. They are not >easy to get back. > >The non-built-in nature of the powerful ideas on the right hand list >implies they are generally more difficult to learn -- and this seems >to be the case. This difficulty makes educational reform very hard >because a very large number of the gatekeepers in education do not >realize these simple ideas and tend to perceive and react (not >think) using the universal left hand list ..... > >Cheers, > >Alan > > > >At 09:11 AM 8/13/2007, Bill Kerr wrote: >>Alan Kay has a couple of slides in his Europython 2006 keynote, >>illustrating Universals and Non Universals >> >>It's right at the start of this video: >><http://mrtopf.blip.tv/file/51972>http://mrtopf.blip.tv/file/51972 >> >> From anthropological research of over 3000 human cultures, he >> presented two lists, the first were universals, the things that >> all human cultures have in common. This list included things like: >>language >>communication >>fantasies >>stories >>tools and art >>superstition >>religion and magic >>play and games >>differences over similarities (?) >>quick reactions to patterns >>vendetta, and more >>He then presented a list of non universals, the things that humans >>find harder to learn. This list was shorter and included: >>reading and writing >>deductive abstract mathematics >>model based science >>equal rights >>democracy >>perspective drawing >>theory of harmony (?) >>similarities over differences (?) >>slow deep thinking >>agriculture >>legal systems >>These lists are really important I think as a guide to what our >>formal education system ought to be teaching - at least a starting >>point to a discourse on powerful ideas, as distinct from the >>dumbing down and smothering effect of generalised curriculum statements >> >>I'm curious as to where alan got his list of "non universals" from >>and would like more details about them. I put a question mark after >>a couple I didn't understand but which sounded interesting. >> >>When I google "non universals" anthropology not much comes up but >>the search universals anthropology was more successful: >> >><http://www.amazon.com/Human-Universals-Donald-E-Brown/dp/007008209X>http://www.amazon.com/Human-Universals-Donald-E-Brown/dp/007008209X >> >>or >><http://tinyurl.com/28n7vv>http://tinyurl.com/28n7vv >> >>-- >>Bill Kerr >><http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/>http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Squeakland mailing list >><mailto:Squeakland@squeakland.org>Squeakland(a)squeakland.org >>http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland >

1 0

Re: [Squeakland] the non universals
by Alan Kay 15 Aug '07

15 Aug '07

Hi Bill -- I'm in a rush, so will reply more extensively later. But, of course, the non-universals are easy for anyone who understands a fair number of the universals and who reads a little. Most cultures on Earth have not had writing systems (and probably still most today). Etc. Cheers, Alan At 08:05 AM 8/15/2007, Bill Kerr wrote: >hi alan, > >Thanks for extensive clarification of the items which I had left >question marks on > > From what you say the "non universals" group originates from you > (!) which sort of explains why I couldn't find other references to > it on the net > >I have used your lists at a few meetings and it has provoked a >response of sorts. On the one hand some people say the "non >universals" is an interesting list. However, I've also noticed some >reluctance or inability to discuss the items on the list in any real >detail or to discuss the implications for the formal education >system. ie it seems to come at people from left field > >In his dissertation on the history of the Dynabook John Maxwell asks >"what is a powerful idea, anyway?" and also argues that there has >been a decline of powerful idea discourse > >What I'm noticing in educational discussion groups, blogs etc. on >the web of late is much talk about "web 2.0", "school 2.0" but this >tends to take place outside of a framework that maybe there are >powerful ideas that really do have to be taught in some way. > >You do say that the major stakeholders don't get it. What I see >there is curriculum frameworks being used as blunt instruments of >control. I'm suggesting, too, that many of the "radicals", who >describe themselves as "web 2.0" are not getting it either. > >In this context I like the idea of your list of "non universals" and >John Maxwells' idea of the need for more powerful idea discourse. >However, I'm also left feeling a bit unsure of the status of the >"non universals" list, eg. how complete is it? have people argued >about it and disputed it? > >I could think of some non universals / powerful ideas that are not >on your list, eg. Darwinian evolution, computer-human symbiosis for >starters ... > >I'm also curious about its connection with using computers in >learning. Clearly etoys and logo can be used to assist teaching some >of those concepts in constructionist fashion, esp maths and science. >But for others I don't see a close connection at the moment (eg. >equal rights, democracy) - although the OLPC project is becoming a >part of that. > >-- >Bill Kerr ><http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/>http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/ > > >On 8/14/07, Alan Kay <<mailto:alan.kay@squeakland.org> >alan.kay(a)squeakland.org> wrote: >Hi Bill -- > >There are various sources for "universals" on the net and off. Quite >a bit more has been found out about these since the days of Lorenz >and Tinbergen. One of the several fields that studies these as >scientifically as possible is called "NeuroEthology" and there are a >number of good books on the subject. T.G.R. Bower was one of the >first to study very young humans specifically. An ancillarly field >that has appeared in the last few decades is called "bio-behavior", >and there also a number of illuminating books there. > >I picked some of the "non-universals" that I thought were important >(and some particularly to contrast items in the universal list). > >To answer your question marks ... > >"Theory of Harmony" is kind of like "Deductive Abstract Mathematics" >in that most traditional cultures have some form of counting, adding >and subtracting -- and some make music with multiple pitches at once >(as did Western Culture before 1600). But the notion of harmony >before 1600 was essentially as a byproduct of melodies and voice >leading rather than a thing in itself in which chords have the same >first class status as melodic lines. How and why this appeared is >fascinating and is well known in music history. > >Some of the most interesting composers in the Baroque period >(especially Bach) tried to make both the old and the new schemes >work completely together. Bach's harmonic language in particular was >an amazing blend of harmonies and bass lines with voice leading and >other contrapuntal techniques (quite a bit of his vocabulary is >revealed in his harmonized chorales (some 371 or 372 of them)). That >these two worlds are very different ways of looking at things is >attested to by a wonderful piece by Purcell "The Contest Between >Melodie and Harmonie". > >As with "Greek Math", history doesn't seem to have any record of a >separate and as rich invention of a harmonic theory. So it is really rare. > >"Similarities over Differences" was to contrast with the standard >processes of most nervous systems of most species to be more >interested in "differences over similarities" (which is listed on >the universal side). At most levels from reflexes to quite a bit of >cognition, most similarities are accommodated and normalized while >differences to the normalizations have a heightened significance (of >"danger" or "pay attention"). > >Paying attention to differences is good for simple survival but >makes it hard to think in many ways because it leads to so many >cases, categories and distinctions -- and because some of the most >important things may have disappeared into "normal" (in particular, >things about oneself and one's own culture). So we unfortunately are >much more interested in even superficial differences between humans >and cultures and have a very hard time thinking of "the other" as >being in the same value space as we are.... > >Part of the invention of modern math by the Greeks was their desire >to get rid of the huge codexes of cases for geometry and arithmetic. >This led to many useful abstractions which could be used as lenses >to see things which looked different to normal minds as actually the >same. For example, the Greek idea that there is only one triangle of >each shape (because you can divide the two short sides by the long >one to make a standard triangle of a given shape). This gets rid of >lots of confusion and leaves room to start thinking more powerful >thoughts. (The Greeks accomplished the interesting and amazing feat >of using normalization to separate similarities and differences but >paid attention to the similarities.) Calculus is a more subtle and >tremendously useful example of separating similarities and >differences. Convolution theory is yet more subtle ... > >One way to think of my chart is that a lot of things we correlate >with "enlightenment" and "civilization" are rather un-natural and >rare inventions whose skills require us to learn how to go against >many of our built in thought patterns. I think this is one of the >main reasons to have an organized education (to learn the skills of >being better thinkers than our nervous systems are directly set up for). > >History suggests that we not lose these powerful ideas. They are not >easy to get back. > >The non-built-in nature of the powerful ideas on the right hand list >implies they are generally more difficult to learn -- and this seems >to be the case. This difficulty makes educational reform very hard >because a very large number of the gatekeepers in education do not >realize these simple ideas and tend to perceive and react (not >think) using the universal left hand list ..... > >Cheers, > >Alan > > > >At 09:11 AM 8/13/2007, Bill Kerr wrote: >>Alan Kay has a couple of slides in his Europython 2006 keynote, >>illustrating Universals and Non Universals >> >>It's right at the start of this video: >><http://mrtopf.blip.tv/file/51972>http://mrtopf.blip.tv/file/51972 >> >> From anthropological research of over 3000 human cultures, he >> presented two lists, the first were universals, the things that >> all human cultures have in common. This list included things like: >>language >>communication >>fantasies >>stories >>tools and art >>superstition >>religion and magic >>play and games >>differences over similarities (?) >>quick reactions to patterns >>vendetta, and more >>He then presented a list of non universals, the things that humans >>find harder to learn. This list was shorter and included: >>reading and writing >>deductive abstract mathematics >>model based science >>equal rights >>democracy >>perspective drawing >>theory of harmony (?) >>similarities over differences (?) >>slow deep thinking >>agriculture >>legal systems >>These lists are really important I think as a guide to what our >>formal education system ought to be teaching - at least a starting >>point to a discourse on powerful ideas, as distinct from the >>dumbing down and smothering effect of generalised curriculum statements >> >>I'm curious as to where alan got his list of "non universals" from >>and would like more details about them. I put a question mark after >>a couple I didn't understand but which sounded interesting. >> >>When I google "non universals" anthropology not much comes up but >>the search universals anthropology was more successful: >> >><http://www.amazon.com/Human-Universals-Donald-E-Brown/dp/007008209X>http://www.amazon.com/Human-Universals-Donald-E-Brown/dp/007008209X >> >>or >><http://tinyurl.com/28n7vv>http://tinyurl.com/28n7vv >> >>-- >>Bill Kerr >><http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/>http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Squeakland mailing list >><mailto:Squeakland@squeakland.org>Squeakland(a)squeakland.org >>http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland >

1 0

Demoing Etoys to kids
by Luke Gorrie 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

Howdy! Can anyone suggest a fun way to demo Etoys to kids aged around 10-12? A friend and I are helping out with a couple of summer camps for kids and we're looking for an opportunity to bring Etoys into the mix, either one on one or with a small group, and for only a short period of time (30-60 minutes, say). Most of the kids only speak arabic, we have one OLPC XO and several other laptops. Our first idea was the "Etoys Challenge for Novices" from the OLPC XO but we wonder if this is a bit ambitious based on half an hour with a bright 12-year-old who can read english (I'm not sure). What we'd like is for kids to be amused and to have some glimpse of what a computer is like, and for ourselves to learn a bit about how kids deal with computers. Any advice would be welcome. Cheers, -Luke

8 11

Re: [Squeakland] Demoing Etoys to kids
by Alan Kay 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Hi Luke -- Kim knows where this stuff is better than I, but there is quite a bit of material about introductory use on squeakland.org. The "make a car and drive it" is always a good one to start off with. Most of these exercises are in Kim's book, and she can send you a pointer to some pdfs. You could also look at the half-finished (but still 50 page) doc I did for OLPC. It has lots of different examples. This is at http://www.vpri.org/pdf/OLPCCountries_RN-2007-006-a.pdf . Also, we just met some folks from Nepal who have been actively doing Etoys there for a few years. Kim might have their email addresses.... Cheers, Alan At 03:58 AM 8/11/2007, Luke Gorrie wrote: >Howdy! > >Can anyone suggest a fun way to demo Etoys to kids aged around 10-12? > >A friend and I are helping out with a couple of summer camps for kids >and we're looking for an opportunity to bring Etoys into the mix, >either one on one or with a small group, and for only a short period >of time (30-60 minutes, say). Most of the kids only speak arabic, we >have one OLPC XO and several other laptops. > >Our first idea was the "Etoys Challenge for Novices" from the OLPC XO >but we wonder if this is a bit ambitious based on half an hour with a >bright 12-year-old who can read english (I'm not sure). > >What we'd like is for kids to be amused and to have some glimpse of >what a computer is like, and for ourselves to learn a bit about how >kids deal with computers. Any advice would be welcome. > >Cheers, >-Luke >_______________________________________________ >Squeakland mailing list >Squeakland(a)squeakland.org >http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland

2 1

the non universals
by Bill Kerr 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Alan Kay has a couple of slides in his Europython 2006 keynote, illustrating Universals and Non Universals It's right at the start of this video: http://mrtopf.blip.tv/file/51972 >From anthropological research of over 3000 human cultures, he presented two lists, the first were universals, the things that all human cultures have in common. This list included things like: - language - communication - fantasies - stories - tools and art - superstition - religion and magic - play and games - differences over similarities (?) - quick reactions to patterns - vendetta, and more He then presented a list of non universals, the things that humans find harder to learn. This list was shorter and included: - reading and writing - deductive abstract mathematics - model based science - equal rights - democracy - perspective drawing - theory of harmony (?) - similarities over differences (?) - slow deep thinking - agriculture - legal systems These lists are really important I think as a guide to what our formal education system ought to be teaching - at least a starting point to a discourse on powerful ideas, as distinct from the dumbing down and smothering effect of generalised curriculum statements I'm curious as to where alan got his list of "non universals" from and would like more details about them. I put a question mark after a couple I didn't understand but which sounded interesting. When I google "non universals" anthropology not much comes up but the search universals anthropology was more successful: http://www.amazon.com/Human-Universals-Donald-E-Brown/dp/007008209X or *http://tinyurl.com/28n7vv* -- Bill Kerr http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [Squeakland] OLPC squeak on OSX
by Alan Kay 09 Aug '07

09 Aug '07

And, of course, the OLPC Etoys runs fine on a Mac or Windows OS ... Cheers, Alan ------------ At 02:51 AM 8/6/2007, John M McIntosh wrote: >Ok by using the unix command ll in a terminal session I assume you >are a bit familiar with Unix. >The issue here is the executable permission is not set on the Squeak >VM Opt. It should look like > >-rwxr-xr-x 1 johnmci staff 2624364 May 16 11:00 Squeak VM Opt > >Lacking the 'x' means it won't execute. > >Given the OLPC-Etoys070726.zip and in the Finder if you control-click >on it to get the command menu and pick >'Open with' it should say that 'BOMArchiveHelper.app' is the >application used to open a ZIP file. > >Double clicking on the ZIP file in the macintosh Finder should also >run BOMArchiveHelper to unzip the file. > >I suspect you used the unzip command line tool to unzip the zip file, >in checking this way of unzipping the archive I found it does not >restore the execute bit properly. > >On Aug 3, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Randy Heiland wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > I am thinking of you all at Squeakfest this week and thought I'd try > > to install/play with the OLPC-Etoys that was advertised on the > > Squeakfest site. Downloading that .zip file and unzipping it, I > > followed the terse README and dragged 'etoys.image' onto > > 'Squeakland.app', but nothing happened, i.e. Etoys didn't pop up. > > Still being a somewhat newbie in OSX, could someone offer up some > > clues? > > > > Previously, I had downloaded etoys from squeakland and that ran fine > > on my Mac. > > > > Fwiw, I'm running OSX 10.4.10 and have: > > > > ~/dev/Education/OLPC$ ll > > total 89264 > > drwxr-xr-x 25 heiland heiland 850 Aug 3 12:42 ExampleEtoys/ > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 76288 Jan 21 2006 > > KedamaPlugin2.dll > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 24631486 Aug 3 12:33 OLPC- > > Etoys070726.zip > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 340 Jul 26 11:12 README > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 1077760 Sep 23 2004 Squeak.exe > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 211 Jul 26 11:36 Squeak.ini > > drwxr-xr-x 3 heiland heiland 102 Aug 3 12:42 > > Squeakland.app/ > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 19899484 Jul 26 11:37 etoys.image > > > > > > ~/dev/Education/OLPC/Squeakland.app/Contents/MacOS$ ll > > total 5136 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 2624364 May 16 11:00 Squeak VM Opt > > -rw-r--r-- 1 heiland heiland 66 May 16 11:01 Squeak VM > > Opt.sig > > > > thanks, Randy > > _______________________________________________ > > Squeakland mailing list > > Squeakland(a)squeakland.org > > http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland > >-- >======================================================================== >=== >John M. McIntosh <johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com> >Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com >======================================================================== >=== > > >_______________________________________________ >Squeakland mailing list >Squeakland(a)squeakland.org >http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland

3 3

Squeak and concept maps.
by Andrés 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

Hi friends squeakers and smalltalkers!: I am not assiduous participant, but I would like to sound out your opinions and ideas on a subject that I investigate. I compile information, on the one hand about conceptual/mental maps and it use, and on the other hand on Squeak/Smalltalk. At the moment I have not gone beyond this compilation, when yesterday, I felt sparks in my mind, something that in "rare" occasion happens to me… |-) The question would be: have you had experience, or at least references, of development or use of conceptual/mental maps with environments or tools of Squeak/Smalltalk?. Those sparks said me that theoretical foundations of both subjects are interlace, being able to combine (it is my impression), reinforcing itself, to offer investigation solutions to us, study and knowledge, that it "craving" to me, quite powerful. Any indication that you have the kindness to contribute will be received with happines. Wishing all of you have had very nice Sunday thanks for your attention. -- Andrés. ______________________________________ El bienestar de la humanidad, su paz y seguridad son inalcanzables, a menos y hasta que su unidad sea firmemente establecida. Bahá'u'lláh. www.bahai.org www.info.bahai.org www.question.bahai.org www.media.bahai.org www.bahaivideo.org

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

squeakland August 2007