From The Scientist in the Crib, to the wannabe scientist, the best life long learning is usually not a lecture. ‘Dad, for learning sake, I am two months old; you’re moving something around in front of me that I am trying to track with my eyes, and at the same time are you trying to tell me something, but dad you’re so deadpanned and monotone that I can’t tell if you want me to do something or if you don’t want me to do something?’ ‘Dad, from mom’s smiles and facial expressions and Motherese, and slow repetition, a pattern for learning emerges that is so much more engaging!’ ‘Dad, when I’m two years old, I may do better...Is that so terrible!’ Both the teacher and the learner have to know How People Learn, 2nd edition, both! When the teacher is putting content up free of charge, a greater emphasis is on the learner. When the teacher is putting up content while being paid to teach, then the teacher really should know how people learn! Personally, when not engaged in project-based learning, I learn best from high-quality video and animation in sync with audio that I can pause, pause to think about, or pause to take a side track to learn something that was a prerequisite for what I’m presently trying to understand. Social interaction between the teacher and the student during the learning process is distracting for me. I am low on the sociability scale, and higher on the autism scale, when learning. For numerous learners, they admire/adore one or two favourite teacher with whom they connected; sociability being a key link to their learning. The distorted figure of a human superimposed on an illustration of the surface of the brain next to the central sulcus; used to demonstrate those portions of the body supplied by the various motor and sensory cortical regions; the homunculus with larger than life hands and larger than life mouth and lips on the face should be a fairly substantive hint to varied preferences for teaching and learning style. The Physical Science Study Committee, usually abbreviated as PSSC Physics included the scientific problem solving project based approach to learning which’s not all that ‘reductive’ in the learning context. The industrial efficiency model with low cost, high marginal revenue economics is what makes stay in your seat, listen and learn - reductive. Systems learning is pretty well documented in the field of neuropsychology and neuroscience, but it hasn’t made the transition to the classroom and university lecture halls…or should I say…back into classrooms and lecture halls. Ironic - teaching systems using a reductive learning model?
The content and simple graphics in these tutorial videos is excellent. But the tone of the narration sounds somewhat artificial. Some believe that the less human you sound, the more authoritative or accessible your teaching is. In my experience the opposite is true. People are naturally attuned to authentic human tone. Artificial tone is distracting, and we eventually tune it out, especially if it sounds like someone is reading a text, instead of saying it as if they're speaking to a person. But I appreciate the content on this channel, and hope that over time the narration will sound more like there's a real person behind it. Thank you for reading.
Listen, most of this should be common sense. As in everyone is looking the same way, sharing the same values (not multiculturalism because that's all kinds of values forced together). People making choices, working together, working against each other, people being indifferent... the direct and indirect effects... positive and negative. It sounds like someone is trying to rationalize everything in order to predict an outcome. Knowledge is power, and someone wants as much knowledge as they can get in order to control EVERYTHING. Predicting behavior, outcomes... to be waiting at a kind of valve to extract everything from the system. I say, genius is being able to perceive the elements and their relationships... to understand their relationships in order to use them for some desired outcome. To be active or passive in this. Because sometimes the best way to get what you want is to do nothing. Once you understand the nature of things, you understand behavior. A thing has parts... the whole is more than the sum of the parts. A human being that's made like Frankenstein's monster of dismembered parts is not alive. We don't understand how life is created from materials. This would be a way I would want to explain that we often don't understand or have a way to recreate patterns that emerge from systems. The order in which we do things often determines the outcome. Why compels us to do or not to do could be described as our understanding, but it can be perceived as our nature from the outside. We have modes of operation, as artists who like spontaneity, or bureaucrats that like order. Anyway, I'm tired, this all seems very simple and hasn't revealed anything new to me. It's been a rationalization, as a way to approach measuring everything so a computer can interpret a system and deliver an outcome. There's something maniacal about it.
Even though the emergent properties arise from the synergies among the parts, is it also true that if you begin systematically removing parts and modifying relationships, that you might identify the optimal structure or minimum quantity and qualities of parts and relations that maintain the emergent property? So can't you take a reductionist approach to studying an emergent phenomenon, at least in theory?
But doing this in practice is impossible. You can't "purely" remove elements from a system, because for that you need to have it in controlled environment (different from its usual environment) and then be infinitely precise in removing perfectly defined parts.
Is there a known theory/formula (the minimum Number of elements and connections/interactions between them needed) for emergence that can pop out? Thanks for these excellent courses on complexity.
No, emergence is not so much a quantitative thing as a qualitative thing, it is the product of synergies which is dependent upon the qualities of the elements involved.
1-what is thinking? 2- how systematic are thoughts? Where and when? 3- why my thoughts differ from yours and and sometimes same with those of newton, Einstein and Hilbert etc?
Intelligent designers need sensory organs to navigate the environment and appendages to interact with the environment. Thats the problem with Intelligent Design.
Honestly the methods presented in this video are done so in a way that I feel it's very depriving toward a student intelligent enough to even bother with complexity theory. Emergency is the theme, however the method used to describe viewing an emergent system is absolute crypto garbage. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're teaching, but, that there is a better way to teach intelligent people and this video is teaching people as though they're just a brick in the wall if they're intelligent enough to learn these things. Respect your intelligent people man.
Love the video but why do you have to mention string theory? It made the channel lose about 10% credibility in my eyes. String theory is a beautiful mathematical theory but it's not really that exciting physically. It hasn't yielded any results, and it's mainly used as a buzzword.
This channel is so bright! please make more, everybody should understand this system thinking!!
Video update to our complexity theory course
Chaos is the glue that maintains order... The competing forces found in chaos creates the adaptations toward a common goal...
In a channel of excellent content I think this one is the most succinct and useful
From The Scientist in the Crib, to the wannabe scientist, the best life long learning is usually not a lecture.
‘Dad, for learning sake, I am two months old; you’re moving something around in front of me that I am trying to track with my eyes, and at the same time are you trying to tell me something, but dad you’re so deadpanned and monotone that I can’t tell if you want me to do something or if you don’t want me to do something?’ ‘Dad, from mom’s smiles and facial expressions and Motherese, and slow repetition, a pattern for learning emerges that is so much more engaging!’ ‘Dad, when I’m two years old, I may do better...Is that so terrible!’
Both the teacher and the learner have to know How People Learn, 2nd edition, both!
When the teacher is putting content up free of charge, a greater emphasis is on the learner.
When the teacher is putting up content while being paid to teach, then the teacher really should know how people learn!
Personally, when not engaged in project-based learning, I learn best from high-quality video and animation in sync with audio that I can pause, pause to think about, or pause to take a side track to learn something that was a prerequisite for what I’m presently trying to understand.
Social interaction between the teacher and the student during the learning process is distracting for me. I am low on the sociability scale, and higher on the autism scale, when learning.
For numerous learners, they admire/adore one or two favourite teacher with whom they connected; sociability being a key link to their learning.
The distorted figure of a human superimposed on an illustration of the surface of the brain next to the central sulcus; used to demonstrate those portions of the body supplied by the various motor and sensory cortical regions; the homunculus with larger than life hands and larger than life mouth and lips on the face should be a fairly substantive hint to varied preferences for teaching and learning style.
The Physical Science Study Committee, usually abbreviated as PSSC Physics included the scientific problem solving project based approach to learning which’s not all that ‘reductive’ in the learning context. The industrial efficiency model with low cost, high marginal revenue economics is what makes stay in your seat, listen and learn - reductive.
Systems learning is pretty well documented in the field of neuropsychology and neuroscience, but it hasn’t made the transition to the classroom and university lecture halls…or should I say…back into classrooms and lecture halls. Ironic - teaching systems using a reductive learning model?
Rational-Idealistic-Monism
The content and simple graphics in these tutorial videos is excellent. But the tone of the narration sounds somewhat artificial. Some believe that the less human you sound, the more authoritative or accessible your teaching is. In my experience the opposite is true. People are naturally attuned to authentic human tone. Artificial tone is distracting, and we eventually tune it out, especially if it sounds like someone is reading a text, instead of saying it as if they're speaking to a person. But I appreciate the content on this channel, and hope that over time the narration will sound more like there's a real person behind it. Thank you for reading.
Thanks for that feedback, what do you think of the other people doing the audio on our videos? Any better? See here:
goo.gl/K4yNrg
goo.gl/1wsF69
I like the voice in this video, but the other voices are more natural.
Thanks
I personally find the voice/tone fits the type of content.
Bravo!
watching on 2x, very clear but quite repettitive
Listen,
most of this should be common sense.
As in everyone is looking the same way, sharing the same values (not multiculturalism because that's all kinds of values forced together).
People making choices, working together, working against each other, people being indifferent...
the direct and indirect effects... positive and negative.
It sounds like someone is trying to rationalize everything in order to predict an outcome.
Knowledge is power, and someone wants as much knowledge as they can get in order to control EVERYTHING.
Predicting behavior, outcomes... to be waiting at a kind of valve to extract everything from the system.
I say, genius is being able to perceive the elements and their relationships...
to understand their relationships in order to use them for some desired outcome.
To be active or passive in this. Because sometimes the best way to get what you want is to do nothing.
Once you understand the nature of things, you understand behavior.
A thing has parts... the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
A human being that's made like Frankenstein's monster of dismembered parts is not alive.
We don't understand how life is created from materials.
This would be a way I would want to explain that we often don't understand or have a way to recreate patterns that emerge from systems.
The order in which we do things often determines the outcome.
Why compels us to do or not to do could be described as our understanding, but it can be perceived as our nature from the outside.
We have modes of operation, as artists who like spontaneity, or bureaucrats that like order.
Anyway, I'm tired, this all seems very simple and hasn't revealed anything new to me.
It's been a rationalization, as a way to approach measuring everything so a computer can interpret a system and deliver an outcome.
There's something maniacal about it.
Good work!
Please do a video on multiscale thinking and how it can be applied to social sciences
Ok, may do, we already have a video on emergent levels though, might be of use to you: goo.gl/w3zSwP
perfect for marketing.
Your video is well done. Thank you.
Even though the emergent properties arise from the synergies among the parts, is it also true that if you begin systematically removing parts and modifying relationships, that you might identify the optimal structure or minimum quantity and qualities of parts and relations that maintain the emergent property? So can't you take a reductionist approach to studying an emergent phenomenon, at least in theory?
But doing this in practice is impossible. You can't "purely" remove elements from a system, because for that you need to have it in controlled environment (different from its usual environment) and then be infinitely precise in removing perfectly defined parts.
Robert Sapolsky explains this in his lecture from Sanford called "Emergence and Complexity."
Is there a known theory/formula (the minimum Number of elements and connections/interactions between them needed) for emergence that can pop out? Thanks for these excellent courses on complexity.
No, emergence is not so much a quantitative thing as a qualitative thing, it is the product of synergies which is dependent upon the qualities of the elements involved.
At least two parts
The solution of complexity increases complexity as the knowledge advances.
Maybe. The parts weren’t the Forrest. They are the 🌳 trees
Anyone else catch at 02:10 "the search for little strings"? Are complexity theorists typically string theorists?
Not any more. This video's been around a while.
1-what is thinking?
2- how systematic are thoughts? Where and when?
3- why my thoughts differ from yours and and sometimes same with those of newton, Einstein and Hilbert etc?
lmfao! You do fancy yourself, don't you,Hilbert?
@@squarerootof2 I do fancy with nature, yes am natural.
Maybe this is off topic but I'm just curious: what software do you use for animation?
Keynote
Chaos to order needs intelligent designer. The more complicated to create a system, the more it needs intelligent designer.
I never saw a tornado create a jumbo jet. It needs ontelligent designer.
Intelligent designers need sensory organs to navigate the environment and appendages to interact with the environment. Thats the problem with Intelligent Design.
Honestly the methods presented in this video are done so in a way that I feel it's very depriving toward a student intelligent enough to even bother with complexity theory. Emergency is the theme, however the method used to describe viewing an emergent system is absolute crypto garbage. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're teaching, but, that there is a better way to teach intelligent people and this video is teaching people as though they're just a brick in the wall if they're intelligent enough to learn these things. Respect your intelligent people man.
Love the video but why do you have to mention string theory? It made the channel lose about 10% credibility in my eyes. String theory is a beautiful mathematical theory but it's not really that exciting physically. It hasn't yielded any results, and it's mainly used as a buzzword.
There is no God particle... For every particle their is the possibility of the simple division by 2...