I work "in the presumptive"...I know what I know, I know what I don't know.
I trust in my intuit, and allow logic, reason and deduction, guided by experience on the dark side to be the only Master.
As your Raw Etymologist....please review, bookmark...share..
Don't feel offended when charged with Ignorance, it simply means....
Ignorant = Not knowing Dumb = Not knowing even when explained Stupid = Knowing, but not accepting Idiot = Knowing, not accepting, AND spewing the converse.....(tv)
http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/knowing.htm Question ...which on describes Liberals? This paper is playing around with a conceit: two senses of the term "know". However, it is all in a professional cause. The two senses are those of:
awareness of self, (represented by the vertical red line in the diagram below) and
knowledge of the world (the horizontal blue line)
There
are of course four possible combinations, which are explored
below. "Knowledge" but not simply as Bloom understands it:
potentially this is the whole cognitive domain. You may find
parallels with the witting and willing practice model, and
also with the familiar "unconscious incompetence" to "unconscious
competence" model, which relates primarily to practical skills:
here we are exploring knowledge. Laing's poetic
exploration of its interpersonal convolutions cited above (it goes
on for another 21 pages), and the citation of the idea by
Neighbour (1992) credited as an Arabic proverb demonstrate that it
has a considerable provenance.
Not knowing you don't know The
first possibility is that of being unaware that you don't know
something. This is the "ignorance is bliss" state, enjoyed by
everyone who pontificates about politics in pubs. It is also the
position of many people on "soft" occupations (such as teaching,
or social work) which look from the outside as if "any fool could
do it". (Some do.) And it is engendered by consummate
professionals who make what they do look easy (such as plasterers
and chefs and popular novelists and...).
Many students start from
this position, and although the Neighbor proverb calls them
"fools", it is not really fair. Let's go on —
So
the first move is often to make learners aware of their ignorance.
This is tricky, in practice. Unless they are a captive audience
it is quite easy to frighten them off. (It is also quite seductive,
because it is a chance to show off your own level of knowledge or
competence.) On the other hand, it is a crucial step in developing
motivation to learn.
There are various ways of doing it.
The
German teacher's name was Roger Baker (in the unlikely event that he
wants to look himself up on the web)In my first German lesson, a young
teacher recited a poem to us in German: it sounded great, but we
couldn't understand a word of it, of course. He didn't really
need to do it, because we already knew we didn't know any of it
apart from a couple of phrases picked up from war films. He was
trying to show what we might aspire to, and went on to explain
that. (It must have made an impact because I can remember the
lesson fifty years later.)
You can ask a student
(usually either one who is a bit full of himself and needs to be
"taken down a peg", or one who is mature enough not to be
humiliated) to do something practical in the certainty that he
will fail. Only do this if you are confident that when you do it,
as you will be challenged to, you can manage it yourself.
You
can pose a problem which has a seemingly simple answer
(political, economic, legal—or in Neighbour's case, medical), and
then show the problems in reaching that simple solution, which
stem from ignorance of the context.
The trick is to show
something which is (so far) beyond the students' reach, but not so
far beyond it that they will despair. The second trick is to make
it interesting. I have deliberately not mentioned strategies for
doing this in accountancy. More significantly:
In
continuing professional development courses in particular, you
may be challenging survival-oriented practice in which people
have a substantial vested interest: this is the key to the whole
un-learning/learning process. See Learning as Loss for more on
this.
Unless you have to do it, don't. Many learners
(particularly those who have signed up for your course of their
own free will) are only too aware of what they don't know. The
last thing they need is for you to rub it in.
Skill in
this area is of course a core competence for charlatans. Whether
self-help gurus who must convince you of your personal inadequacy
or potential ill-health, religious proselytizers who must
convict you of sins only they believe are sinful, or salespeople
who have to create a "need" for their product, they all have to
manage this stage. Study and learn from them—just don't believe
them.
Don't allow the question..."why are you being so negative" stop you....
show them THE math - Common Core will preclude this logic from ever being understood.
When you are negative against a negative...its a POSITIVE....= Virtue When you are positive about something NEGATIVE = EVIL Learn how to do the MATH..... Not everything FOR is good....NOT everything AGAINST is BAD Get the Math straight...
What goes around comes around in Nature and IN THE WORLD
Deny reality all you wish.....Reality is not afraid of your militant indifference..
Reality if not Utopia isn't accepted
Liberalism re-Conditions -Shapes the way one believes....forget THINK.
How Poor Are America's Poorest? U.S. $2 A Day Poverty In A Global Context
In the United States, the official poverty rate for 2012 stood at 15 percent based on the national poverty line
which is equivalent to around $16 per person per day. Of the 46.5 million Americans living in poverty, 20.4
million live under half the poverty line. This begs the question of just how poor America’s poorest people are.
Poverty, in one form or other, exists in every country. But the most acute, absolute manifestations of poverty are
assumed to be limited to the developing world. This is reflected in the fact that rich countries tend to set higher
poverty lines than poor countries, and that global poverty estimates have traditionally excluded industrialized
countries and their populations altogether.
An important study on U.S. poverty by Luke Shaefer and Kathryn Edin
gently challenges this assumption. Using an alternative dataset from the
one employed for the official U.S. poverty measure, Shaefer and Edin
show that millions of Americans live on less than $2 a day—a threshold
commonly used to measure poverty
in the developing world. Depending on the exact definitions used, they
find that up to 5 percent of American
households with children are shown to fall under this parsimonious
poverty line.
Methodologies for measuring poverty differ wildly both within and
across countries, so comparisons and their interpretation demand extreme
care.
These numbers are intended to shock—and they succeed. The United States is known for having higher inequality
and a less generous social safety net than many affluent countries in Europe, but the acute deprivations that flow
from this are less understood. A crude comparison of Shaefer and Edin’s estimates with the World Bank’s official
$2 a day poverty estimates for developing economies would place the United States level with or behind a large set
of countries, including Russia (0.1 percent), the West Bank and Gaza (0.3 percent), Jordan (1.6 percent), Albania
(1.7 percent), urban Argentina (1.9 percent), urban China (3.5 percent), and Thailand (4.1 percent). Many of these
countries are recipients of American foreign aid. However, methodologies for measuring poverty differ wildly both
within and across countries, so such comparisons and their interpretation demand extreme care.
This brief is organized into two parts. In the first part, we examine the welfare of America’s poorest people
using a variety of different data sources and definitions. These generate estimates of the number of Americans
living under $2 a day that range from 12 million all the way down to zero. This wide spectrum reflects not only
a lack of agreement on how poverty can most reliably be measured, but the particular ways in which poverty is,
and isn’t, manifested in the U.S.. In the second part, we reexamine America’s $2 a day poverty in the context
of global poverty. We begin by identifying the source and definition of poverty that most faithfully replicates the
World Bank’s official poverty measure for the developing world to allow a fairer comparison between the U.S.
and developing nations. We then compare the characteristics of poverty in the U.S. and the developing world
to provide a more complete picture of the nature of poverty in these different settings. Finally, we explain why
comparisons of poverty in the U.S. and the developing world, despite their limitations and pitfalls, are likely to
become more common.
All you Anti-american fools who emote "caring for others".....my name is Tucker, NOT SUCKER.....
There are there are three types of Cons...which one ARE YOU?
I'm am dam well FED UP with claims of homophobia....spread through ALL of our "CULTure"...you? Never bend over to #queerpressure
I'm am dam well FED UP with claims of homophobia.... spread through ALL of our "CULTure"...you?
Never bend over to #queerpressure Anyone DARE suggest YOU homoPhobe....
set them straight in no uncertain terms...with your power of certainty, remind them of ESSENTIAL TRUTH....
"Your a HeteroPhobe...." don't add one more word.... a friends response. Ronald Bell Less than 2% of the United States of America, is QUEER but 90% of those QUEERS are LIBERALS and are forcing this indecent and unnatural behavior, on all the rest of US!