Maslow's hierarchy of psychosocial needs

[AntonioLao]

perfect example of why communication between individuals is not a simple matter

But it is alright for everyone to keep trying or not to give up trying. Maybe this is our responsibility as human beings to continuously strive for zero entropy of information.

[labelwench]

But it is alright for everyone to keep trying or not to give up trying. Maybe this is our responsibility as human beings to continuously strive for zero entropy of information.

http://dilbert.com/2010-03-13/

[racecar]

Found this today while surfing "say anything". http://powerthroughyourwords.wordpre...bol-not-yours/

I hope it doesn't disrupt the flow, as I'm not following this thread closely, but It had similar key words. I found it to be interesting, but have no opinion to add at this time. I do hope this doesn't sound sarcastic, because it's not meant to be.

[AntonioLao]

I think failure to communicate cannot be remedied by a universal language within a limited short time duration. Problems of communication are compounded by the fact that every language by itself is dynamic and its evolution causes the appearance of generation gaps between the young and the old as well as between opposite sex and between different cultures. Moreover, to become proficient in a particular language will take a lifetime. Nonetheless, it takes two persons with comparable knowledge and intelligence to communicate at the same level of understanding. The rest of the masses communicated that is simply based on trust and compassion.

[labelwench]

I think failure to communicate cannot be remedied by a universal language within a limited short time duration. Problems of communication are compounded by the fact that every language by itself is dynamic and its evolution causes the appearance of generation gaps between the young and the old as well as between opposite sex and between different cultures. Moreover, to become proficient in a particular language will take a lifetime. Nonetheless, it takes two persons with comparable knowledge and intelligence to communicate at the same level of understanding. The rest of the masses communicated that is simply based on trust and compassion.

From my observations, it is not the lack of attempted communication; rather the lack of shared comprehension.

From our genetic potential, culture, and educational opportunities, we evolve a 'framework' from our life experiences, and those experiences and theories of others that we are able to assimilate and incorporate into our framework, which is ever evolving, and usually, expanding. (Arrested development may be experienced in some individuals, for a number of reasons.)

Within our own framework, we have a dichotomy, which is the result of our brain structure. There is the world as we experience it. (Objective) There is also the world as we conceptualize it. (Subjective)

When communicating with others, we not only need to find shared frames of reference and the means by which to exchange information,(experience, emotions, emerging ideas) we need also to identify whether we are coming from the objective or subjective perspective.

As for a universal language......it already exists. We all use it in our day to day life, but most are not aware, and are not conscious of their body energy and how it affects every nuance of every exchange with other live beings, be they plant, animal or human.

Words......written and projected on a paper or screen, are powerful, yet easy to misinterpret.

From the people of the land I have learned that any matter of import must be conducted face to face.

All else is merely data, devoid of experience.

It is not proper communication.

It cannot be 'shared' in a manner that can be 'comprehended.'

[AntonioLao]

All else is merely data, devoid of experience.

Then our responsibility would be to feed these data into a smart computer to see if we get GIGO.

[labelwench]

Then our responsibility would be to feed these data into a smart computer to see if we get GIGO.

Given that all computers must first be programmed, and that programmers are human, how are we to know that there is not an error in the original system?

When first we had the written language, and there were few who could comprehend, those who could not read had no choice but to place their trust in the one who could decipher the written word. Even when many more people developed the skill of reading and writing, the written word was still regarded as the next thing to sacrosanct. Many people still, do not question the written word, and rely on erroneous information rather than do some research of their own.

With the advent of the computer, and from spending time doing on-line research in areas in which I have decades of personal experience and events of which I know the history, as the original records were in my keeping, I am amazed at the rapid proliferation of information, and consequent inaccuracies. Now, everyone seems to be enthralled by the visual and audio presentations that are available, which are great for entertainment, but must ever be regarded as the illusions they are, as even a neophyte such as myself can effect manipulation of pixels and sound by means of the programs that are available and getting more user-friendly with each passing day. Having produced a video on equines just as analog was giving way to digital, I have some understanding of the mechanics involved in obtaining and editing acquisition footage. Getting good footage is still the challenge, but editing the result now, is a fraction of the work, and so many tools to express creatively.

Computers make our tasks much easier, but they will never take the place of live interaction. Their main advantage is that they allow us to exchange data with people whom we may never otherwise have occasion or opportunity to make such attempt with.

Still no replacement for a good meal, a beverage, and a spontaneous dialogue......

[AntonioLao]

how are we to know that there is not an error in the original system?

As an experienced programmer, I can say that the errors implied in computers are logical errors in contrast to calculational or computational errors. If logical error does appear usually the course of action is to recode the entire program to change the logical flow and not to change the calculational flow. FYI, a computer program is just a set of sequential instructions with embedded conditions (if-then-else) and iterations (do-while condition is true).

[racecar]

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, professor of mathematics (1887-1985)

"Assessing data, creating language- that's no laptop, that's your baby. Our report on infant intelligence and what you can do to enhance it- reveals your tot is already one smart cookie." babytalk Dec./Jan. 2010

Some highlights from the story-

From the get go babies are assessing data, looking for patterns, making sense of surroundings- and, ultimately, developing the critical-thinking skills he/she will utilize later. A baby sticking out tongue and furrowing brow while scrutinizing the reflection in a mirror is trying to pick up information about the physics of the room.

Talk about infant "intelligence" and many folks conjure images of baby flash cards and language videos.
"There is no evidence that any of these products can improve a baby's intelligence," says Alison Gopnik, Ph,D., child psycology professor at the University of California, Berkely.....(for the record pigeons also can recognize images on flash cards.)

For hundreds of years, scientists thought infants were little more than highly demanding vegetables. But over the past 40 yeas, as the field of child cognitive study flourished, research has proven otherwise. "Babies are quite clever," says Hirsh-Pasek, who is the author of almost a dozen books on child development, including, Einstein Never Used Flash Cards.

-"If, in the first six months, a baby is like a little IBM mainframe, cataloguing and processing vast amounts of information, then the next six months are more about studying trends in that data. At this point, babies begin to predict responses...."

Conversation and Imagination- making sense of social cues and improving the ability to imagine possibilities that don't exist...Exploring the ways the world can be, not just the way the world is. By pretending, a baby is learning innovation, one of the most highly regarded aspects of human intelligence.

"To nurture development, experts recommend open-ended toys: building blocks, shape sorters- even tupperware and pots and pans." The most important thing is to resist micromanaging baby's play. This may seem counterintuitive in our results-oriented society. But the recipe for raising smart babies is startling simple: Talk to them, nurture them, and provide them with a safe environment in which they can make their own discoveries.

From another magazine, Woman's World...I think...an article on sticks, you know, like the wooden ones you pick-up in the yard...

Open-ended playthings, that is, objects that can be whatever you decide they are (like sticks and boxes). They invite exactly the kind of experimenting and imitating that helps neurons in children's brains make connections that are the foundation of learning and language.

The brain absorbs and applies the concept in a different setting with just one exposure- called fast mapping. This same process is how vocabulary explodes. Symbolic play encourages abstract thinking and the ability to see things from different perspectives later on.


....just thinking out-loud....trying to make a connection to Then our responsibility would be to feed these data into a smart computer to see if we get GIGO.
..the more varied info you put in the more you....

[labelwench]

Excellent post, Racecar.

With babies (and with foals), all we need to supply is a safe and nurturing environment.

While we should not impose our own framework on the young, in the earliest stages, it may be helpful to shelter them from the confusion of paradox (where and when possible) until they have sufficient analytical background to make their own choices. It is said that negative traits and conduct are far easier to learn than positive actions, and twice as hard to dispel, once habituated.

Nature has already endowed all young with the toolbox for assimilating data. If form and function are lacking, of course we may choose to intervene, when the purpose is to preserve life until it can resume normal function.

When, where, and how much to intervene then becomes the topic of discussion and leads one on to the trail of ethics.......tricky terrain, is ethics.....