Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA00137 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:15:20 +0100 Message-ID: <39C5273B.D3DC5DA@fcol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:19:08 -0400 From: "Robert G.(Bob) Grimes" <grimes@fcol.com> Organization: Grimes & Grimes Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD compaq (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics and knowledge References: <20000915104917.A1648@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200009162002.QAA18143@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> <20000917140026.A2429@reborntechnology.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Folks,
This subject brought to my mind experiences during W.W.II when I had to supervise a
bunch of Electronic Technicians. I had quite a background of electronics prior to
joining the Navy but didn't possess a rating higher than Electronic Technician's
Mate 3/c (The only rating test I took was for that rating when I was overseas). I
had supervisory responsibility for ETMs as high as 1/c but due to a problem with
the Navy's otherwise excellent ETM course (4 years of electrical engineering in 2
years). The course, by necessity, couldn't supply adequate laboratory times for
such training and thus the great majority of teaching was verbal with verbal
testing. As a result we had several hundred ETMs who were assisting the Red Cross
cooking doughnuts, etc., and other jobs because their commanding officers had
beached them since they couldn't repair the gear for which they had been trained.
I vouch that detecting this failure was at first very difficult because they could
answer almost any test question with excellent answers. The only problem was they
couldn't identify the words with the physical world. For example, I would ask one
of them what resulted in a particular symptom he might respond, "It is a shorted
cathode bypass capacitor." I would then ask, "Point out the cathode bypass
capacitor, please." Unfortunately, they couldn't do it. They could even point out
certain things on the schematic but couldn't identify it on the actual chassis. It
was a classic case of verbal I.Q. compared to performance I.Q. Normally, due to
our mode of schooling, everyone's verbal I.Q. is much higher than their performance
I.Q. On the other hand, I had guys who had been helpers in a radio repair shop who
couldn't tell me in "words" how to do anything but they could fix almost any of the
common problems we faced.
Thus, the previous statements about "if you can't say it, you don't know it" is
exactly opposite of what my experience was. I had hundreds of ETMs who could
describe symptoms in words and techniques for repair in words but who couldn't fix
a thing where I had others who couldn't tell anyone how they knew what was wrong
with equipment nor how they went about repairing it, but they could do the job. It
created quite a problem because the over verbally trained guys were convinced they
knew their stuff because they had passed written tests (multiple choice) but when
presented with practical problems were completely lost. They fooled me more than
once so that I had to start asking such simple questions as, "Where is the audio
coupling transformer?" It was startling how bad the problem was even though there
were lots of guys who had the same training and could do the job...
Cordially,
Bob
Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:07:37PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >
> > > In a message I've deleted, Joe said something like:
> > >
> > > If you can't say it, you don't know it.
> > >
> > Saying it does not mean that the other person automatically gets it
> > (some people just aren't too bright), just that (s)he in principle can
> > (that it semantically adheres to the state or process of affairs being
> > described).
>
> Surely, for the traditional concept of knowledge, whether the other
> person gets it is irrelevant? Unless this is some kind of mystificatory
> backtrack? :-)
>
> > > This is simply wrong, but it opens up an interesting topic: the distinction
> > > between memetic and non-memetic knowledge.
> > >
> > > Intellectual knowledge is not the only sort -- there is also experiential
> > > knowledge, that gained through experience, rather than verbally or via
> > > other media, from books, parents, teachers and friends.
> > >
> > Experience is the primordial source for all that verbal and written
> > and other media knowledge passed on.
>
> Yup. So?
>
-- Bob Grimeshttp://members.aol.com/bob5266/ http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/bobinjax/ http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788 Jacksonville, Florida Bob5266@aol.com robert.grimes@excite.com bobinjax@hotbot.com
Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more in control...
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 21:16:27 BST