The Corean Chronicles
Reflecting Minds
I think so. I'd claim that this generation has perfected the "reflecting mind." They are supremely able to reflect back simple facts and known applications, as well as deal with uncomplicated or routine or mundane tasks with speed -- often only with the help of technology, however. Their reflexes and hand-to-eye coordination in general surpass earlier generations.
What they don't do well, if at all, in many cases [Warning! This is a generalization that does not apply to a small and distinguished minority] is think and analyze. Nor are most of them able to learn from the experiences of others or from aural/oral communications.
More than a few educators -- far more than those in my family -- have noted that listening comprehension among students is markedly down. A doctor who teaches medical school has observed that even med-school students have trouble retaining material presented orally unless they take notes.
It's not just listening retention. I've noticed something else as well, as have others in various fields, but one set of examples comes to mind. Although I'm required to proof-read the galleys of my books, they also go to proofreaders as well, and I've noted in the past few years, more and more proofreaders are asking me to clarify references unnecessarily. For example, in a forthcoming book, a pilot refers to a vessel by name. The proofreader requested that there be more identification, and that I show that the name referred to a class of ship. That would be fine if it had been 100 or 200 pages since the name was used, but I'd given that very description in some detail a page and a half before. Another proofreader wanted clarification of a point, requesting specific information -- despite the fact that that same information ended one of the key chapters. My wife the professor has noted that even "good" students often cannot remember material presented in class lectures, discussed in workshops, and included in reading assignments.
Another example comes up in the Internet Database Forum, where readers ask me questions about books. All too often the younger readers ask questions about books of mine that they have read, when the answers were already in the books. Most of the time, older readers supply the answers even before I do; so it's not as though the material is that obscure.
This non-thinking reflexivity shows up in other parts of society as well, such as in the stock market. Recently, crude oil prices have plunged, and consequently so have the prices of energy stocks -- regardless of whether the company in question is even affected by the price of crude oil. Natural gas companies have seen their prices fall, even though natural gas prices have effectively stabilized and reserve stocks are declining. Pipelines, who get paid the same for transporting petroleum products regardless of crude oil prices, have also suffered stock price declines of roughly the same magnitude as oil producers. None of that makes any economic sense, but the computers and the techies react in nanoseconds.
It does make reflexive market sense, as noted by Henry Blodgett in an article just published in The Atlantic Monthly, where he notes that (1) the vast majority of stock trading is handled by younger people, well below 40, who have no historical memory and who react quickly, pragmatically, and instantly and (2) the greatest short term profits come from reflexively following the herd. He points out that the same kind of thinking was what triggered the real estate boom and bust. This is similar to jockeying for position among the lemmings as they rush to the ocean. You do just fine until everyone goes over the cliff.
In short, brilliantly reflecting answers back in a test-taking educational system prepares our students for quick answers and short-term decision-making. But it's not doing them -- or us -- much good in the long run, because planning beyond the now requires an understanding of more than the present and the surface of the past, not to mention analytical and considered decision-making. Especially when such "brilliant" short-term decisions more often than not lead to long-term disasters.
I've had classes where I had to simplify the vocabulary I used on essays because the teachers would have to ask me what a given word meant. I have a larger than usual vocabulary, yes, due to my voracious reading, but the words I use aren't that obscure.
So, like all children, my peers learned to reflect what we were taught. And we were taught that to make it through school, you had to ignore all extraneous information and focus solely on the goal. The problem is that "extraneous" is defined as anything that can't be tested with a scantron.
"Pipelines, who get paid the same for transporting petroleum products regardless of crude oil prices, have also suffered stock price declines of roughly the same magnitude as oil producers. None of that makes any economic sense..."
I learned about this years ago when Microsoft faced a federal antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft's stock price fell (as expected), but so did Apple's despite Apple benefiting from Microsoft's woes. This counterintuitive movement in stock prices occurs due to block trading. Most stocks are bought by pension fund managers and financial institutions that run mutual funds. They lump stocks into groups (oil & gas, computer, auto, bank & finance, pharmaceuticals, etc.). When something bad happens within a block (oil prices dropping or Microsoft getting sued), then the fund managers start selling all the stocks in that block. When one or more stocks in a block do well, they buy more of all stocks in that block. This type of trading can easily be handled by a computer program, allowing fund managers to spend all day sitting on their fundaments.
I was astonished that such a stupid approach was widely used. How can anyone justify its use? The answer is that it's slightly better than doing nothing, which is what these lazy fund managers would typically do. Now, sharp traders take advantage of block trading: if a good stock gets dragged down within a block, they buy it near the bottom hoping that other non-block traders will buy a day or two later and pull the stock price upward.
Therefore, based on what I learned, I don't believe Henry Blodgett's comments refer to the particular problem of counterintuitive stock price changes. He's describing individual stock trades at brokerage firms (that have their own problems).
: 4:38 PMShould it be any different? Who is rewarded for a long-term stance that requires sacrifice for a better result ten years down the road? This cultural degradation is fatal to the success of a society, yet we seem to be ignoring those who sound the alarm.
Everyone thinks that their child is special, despite great statistical evidence that over 49% of all children are below average. So, we demand answers when the children aren't all special, then the government steps into the fray. Children can improve with intensive tutoring, of course, but we can't/won't afford such measures so we change the measures used to test the outcome: scantron.
Actual educational success is replaced with something easier to measure and meet and then everyone wonders why the next generation doesn't think.
Those with the capacity to teach aren't rewarded and it seems that those who can't are placed as management, further muddling the picture. We spend far too many resources in coordination and inaccurate measurements.
I blame the parents and the NEA as willing partners in this debacle. Parents demand unreasonable results with insufficient resources because they do not care or understand. The NEA only wishes to maximize their dues and political clout because they are a business, not an organization that has "Children First" as a guiding ethos.
We were forced to think, to analyze, to pick the best answer of four correct answers. Half our class failed. The younger half. The rest of us learned critical thinking and prioritization.
And none of it make the state boards any easier to conquer, because NCLEX is s really hard test, because it finds your weak area and skewers you right there.
Perhaps if more tests were computer adaptive testing where all four choices are correct we'd teach our kids to think?
<< Back to all Blog posts
