Share: For what is thought to be a "system" is after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about parts. - Albert Einstein
Please be reminded not to comment on this post but the previous one :-)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Creativity
Frankly, creativity is one of the qualities I value most. I value it because this is the quality that can break through the existing boundaries and change the world. This is the value that can truly make a difference to the world.
I don't have a lot of passions, but I do really love computer programming. (Recall that my definition of passion is love for things you do). Anything related to technology catches my eyes and that is why I am in Computer Science major. Probably another passion of me is to think about new crazy ideas. One of the best things I retained from my childhood is my crazy imagination. I like to think and imagine things a lot that I can just day dream for an hour and spend many hours following up with the idea (like searching for information, drawing sketches and mockups). The third thing is probably soccer, which I am not very good in. I don't know why, I just feel happy playing soccer though I do not achieve anything. That's the weird thing about passion.
Out of topic: The explanation of the words Fluency, Flexibility, Originality and Elaboration is seriously lacking in the lecture. A lot of things are trying to be stuffed into our brains, and the final result is we heard of everything but never really know it. We never really understand it. This is the same case in many other topics like the Toulmin's model and empathetic listening. I am sorry to say that is not the way teaching should be, or rather how learning should be. Because teaching is not the goal, the goal is learning. There is nothing constructive done when teaching has done but no learning occurred. Seriously, this is something that has to be revised in the future iEFX courses.
See this for elaboration on what those weird words means: http://www.acteonline.org/uploadedFiles/Publications_and_Online_Media/files/files-techniques-2008/Research-Report-April-2008.pdf
My partner has a long list of passion, which I sort of categorize them into a few, and omitted those weaker ones that I can tell not as strong as the others. (sorry for the phrasing)
1. Technical theater - lighting, sounding and stuff in a theater
2. Acting
3. Music instruments
4. Furniture building
5. Camping
You can see that our passions do not have a lot of overlaps, and this is exactly what makes this mashing up interesting. So I will start listing out the endless possibilities of mixing the two lists of passions. Occasionally I will add in elaborations for the ones I think prominent.
1. Computer + Acting = Pixar : )
2. Soccer + Camping = Soccer camp - pretty boring
3. Computer + Technical theater = Smart theater, like in smart home all the things are automated, in a smart theater all the stuff are automated by computer. There can also be virtual characters using holographs and 3D graphics.
4. Computer + Acting (again) = Avatar real time animation monitor. I don't know what this is called properly. This is the monitor system that James Cameron use to monitor the effect of the scene after addition of computer graphics in real time.
5. Software + music instruments = ocarina: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfrONZjakRY
6. Programming + Camping = Augmented reality camping: use software programs to provide a richer camping experience. For example, a virtual treasure hunt using mobile phones to search for the treasure and to display hints.
7. Soccer + Furniture building = Build a goal
8. Programming + Furniture building = Autocad used for furnitures
9. Music instrument + Soccer = music playing soccer ball? That will be weird
10. Programming + soccer = augmented reality soccer -> see the offside line in real time
11. Technology + soccer (again?) = 3D soccer broadcast
12. Technical theater + soccer = Goal: the Dream Begins on theater
13. Music instrument + thinking = developing the idea in a musical form. Must be very cool
14. Acting + soccer = Goal series. Someone has done that.
15. Camping + programming = 30 Hour hack-a-thon in a camp site? I doubt if there will be internet connection.
16. Furniture building + thinking = Let's make a The Thinker sculpture
17. Music + programming = Miuro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzMirJhEepc
18. Camping + furniture building = I would rather build a house for myself on the site
19. Acting + programming = Robot acting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pnLtsdSqU4 That's only computer graphics, not a real robot acting... But this is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQDQKqO44QI
20. Software + anything = automated anything. In this world, whatever thing you can think of, there is some way software can help you.
Everything else left to imagination
What is real creativity: http://blogconcept.wordpress.com/
I don't have a lot of passions, but I do really love computer programming. (Recall that my definition of passion is love for things you do). Anything related to technology catches my eyes and that is why I am in Computer Science major. Probably another passion of me is to think about new crazy ideas. One of the best things I retained from my childhood is my crazy imagination. I like to think and imagine things a lot that I can just day dream for an hour and spend many hours following up with the idea (like searching for information, drawing sketches and mockups). The third thing is probably soccer, which I am not very good in. I don't know why, I just feel happy playing soccer though I do not achieve anything. That's the weird thing about passion.
Out of topic: The explanation of the words Fluency, Flexibility, Originality and Elaboration is seriously lacking in the lecture. A lot of things are trying to be stuffed into our brains, and the final result is we heard of everything but never really know it. We never really understand it. This is the same case in many other topics like the Toulmin's model and empathetic listening. I am sorry to say that is not the way teaching should be, or rather how learning should be. Because teaching is not the goal, the goal is learning. There is nothing constructive done when teaching has done but no learning occurred. Seriously, this is something that has to be revised in the future iEFX courses.
See this for elaboration on what those weird words means: http://www.acteonline.org/uploadedFiles/Publications_and_Online_Media/files/files-techniques-2008/Research-Report-April-2008.pdf
My partner has a long list of passion, which I sort of categorize them into a few, and omitted those weaker ones that I can tell not as strong as the others. (sorry for the phrasing)
1. Technical theater - lighting, sounding and stuff in a theater
2. Acting
3. Music instruments
4. Furniture building
5. Camping
You can see that our passions do not have a lot of overlaps, and this is exactly what makes this mashing up interesting. So I will start listing out the endless possibilities of mixing the two lists of passions. Occasionally I will add in elaborations for the ones I think prominent.
1. Computer + Acting = Pixar : )
2. Soccer + Camping = Soccer camp - pretty boring
3. Computer + Technical theater = Smart theater, like in smart home all the things are automated, in a smart theater all the stuff are automated by computer. There can also be virtual characters using holographs and 3D graphics.
4. Computer + Acting (again) = Avatar real time animation monitor. I don't know what this is called properly. This is the monitor system that James Cameron use to monitor the effect of the scene after addition of computer graphics in real time.
5. Software + music instruments = ocarina: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfrONZjakRY
6. Programming + Camping = Augmented reality camping: use software programs to provide a richer camping experience. For example, a virtual treasure hunt using mobile phones to search for the treasure and to display hints.
7. Soccer + Furniture building = Build a goal
8. Programming + Furniture building = Autocad used for furnitures
9. Music instrument + Soccer = music playing soccer ball? That will be weird
10. Programming + soccer = augmented reality soccer -> see the offside line in real time
11. Technology + soccer (again?) = 3D soccer broadcast
12. Technical theater + soccer = Goal: the Dream Begins on theater
13. Music instrument + thinking = developing the idea in a musical form. Must be very cool
14. Acting + soccer = Goal series. Someone has done that.
15. Camping + programming = 30 Hour hack-a-thon in a camp site? I doubt if there will be internet connection.
16. Furniture building + thinking = Let's make a The Thinker sculpture
17. Music + programming = Miuro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzMirJhEepc
18. Camping + furniture building = I would rather build a house for myself on the site
19. Acting + programming = Robot acting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pnLtsdSqU4 That's only computer graphics, not a real robot acting... But this is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQDQKqO44QI
20. Software + anything = automated anything. In this world, whatever thing you can think of, there is some way software can help you.
Everything else left to imagination
What is real creativity: http://blogconcept.wordpress.com/
Monday, November 15, 2010
Thoughts on Marking Schemes
I realized that the marking scheme of this blog system is getting more detailed and precise as the course goes. Here, I am expressing my concern over this.
I used to think iEFX as a place where creativity is encouraged and ideas gets combined and improved synergetically. I hope it still is, but the use of detailed marking schemes to mark these blog posts are taking us away from these ideals. I grew up in a place where the education system sees the marking scheme as the holy grail, to the extent that "marking schemes are always right". In this system, everything that is not strictly adhered to the marking scheme are considered wrong. You and I know better, something not in the scheme is not necessarily wrong. No one believed energy is the same thing as mass when it was proved.
We do not want marking schemes to get in place which kills real innovative ideas, leaving behind only the exact same way of thinking for our next generation. This is a molding education system in which all sorts of people go in but everyone comes out looking the same. We don't want this because we value diversity.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
On the other end, marking schemes cannot reveal the true ability of a student. Why? Because these schemes can be reverse engineered. I can give you a similar marking scheme for any question in the world. I can tailor-made my answers to the marking schemes to ensure I get the maximum possible score I can have.
There are indeed courses that need marking schemes, like mathematics and sciences, which require precise technical skills and high accuracy together with professional notations in which students have to learn to communicate in that language (the language of physics, the language of mathematics). There are significantly clearer rights or wrongs in these subjects.
But not in iEFX, not in a course which "missing basics" are emphasized. Not in a course which is supposed to draw on the students' creativity.
Correct me if I am wrong on what I think iEFX is. I hope you don't make me regret joining iEFX.
I used to think iEFX as a place where creativity is encouraged and ideas gets combined and improved synergetically. I hope it still is, but the use of detailed marking schemes to mark these blog posts are taking us away from these ideals. I grew up in a place where the education system sees the marking scheme as the holy grail, to the extent that "marking schemes are always right". In this system, everything that is not strictly adhered to the marking scheme are considered wrong. You and I know better, something not in the scheme is not necessarily wrong. No one believed energy is the same thing as mass when it was proved.
We do not want marking schemes to get in place which kills real innovative ideas, leaving behind only the exact same way of thinking for our next generation. This is a molding education system in which all sorts of people go in but everyone comes out looking the same. We don't want this because we value diversity.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
On the other end, marking schemes cannot reveal the true ability of a student. Why? Because these schemes can be reverse engineered. I can give you a similar marking scheme for any question in the world. I can tailor-made my answers to the marking schemes to ensure I get the maximum possible score I can have.
There are indeed courses that need marking schemes, like mathematics and sciences, which require precise technical skills and high accuracy together with professional notations in which students have to learn to communicate in that language (the language of physics, the language of mathematics). There are significantly clearer rights or wrongs in these subjects.
But not in iEFX, not in a course which "missing basics" are emphasized. Not in a course which is supposed to draw on the students' creativity.
Correct me if I am wrong on what I think iEFX is. I hope you don't make me regret joining iEFX.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Listening
In this assignment I am required to empathetically listen to another person for 45 minutes. The listening here is not in the strict definition where I just listen and not talk at all. It is quite the opposite. I have to use techniques like asking questions, mirroring, paraphrasing and hypothesizing. Besides that, we also have to Agree, Build and Compare to points addressed.
Listening is not a good word for this. You realize that all of the skills is not in how you listen, but how you respond. Interrogate is more accurate in meaning, but definitely not in connotation. After all, you goal is to understand what someone is thinking. Whether it is an emotion, a feeling, an idea, an opinion or anything else. You just want to understand, because that is what the listenee wants. Empathetic listening is about quality, not quantity. 45 minutes can't guarantee you understand everything the listenee wants to express, but sometimes the listenee just doesn't want to talk that long.
What I have dealt with is one of the most difficult situation on Earth. I was talking to a friend on phone, and she said she hate her mother because her mother is annoying and scold her all the time and even mock about her academic results. She was very frustrated. I would like to calm her down, but I can't entirely agree on what she said, because this will add fuel to her hatred to her mother. (Luckily I knew it's not really hate, but a moment of frustration). Still, I have to calm her down. I asked her about the thing that lead her to such frustration. She was unwilling to share at first, but after I try to make some assertions, guessing what the situation was, she told me that her mother scold her because she was not studying despite the fact that she was studying all day.
What I did is I spoke from her standpoint, agreeing to what she said (her mother is XXXX annoying) while playing down her emotions. I understand her frustration because I have been in similar situations before, except the fact that I was able to keep myself calm and keep my emotions out of it. I drew a comparison to the situation I had before, and she felt I really understand. I told her how I dealt with the situation and urged her to do the same. Keep calm and stay out of it. She followed what I said and calmed down.
In this situation, I used a lot of the"listening not listening" skills (AMPP and ABC), to empathize her. But the fact is even elementary school students know this. They always ask questions, they compare each others points, built on each other, and mimic what their teacher said etc. What they do not know is that when there is some disagreement between you and the listenee, you don't have to say it directly, but you can ask more about it the understand more. You can draw comparisons to indirectly show your point. This way your voice is much more acceptable to the listenee, and you can understand more about them.
Listening is not a good word for this. You realize that all of the skills is not in how you listen, but how you respond. Interrogate is more accurate in meaning, but definitely not in connotation. After all, you goal is to understand what someone is thinking. Whether it is an emotion, a feeling, an idea, an opinion or anything else. You just want to understand, because that is what the listenee wants. Empathetic listening is about quality, not quantity. 45 minutes can't guarantee you understand everything the listenee wants to express, but sometimes the listenee just doesn't want to talk that long.
What I have dealt with is one of the most difficult situation on Earth. I was talking to a friend on phone, and she said she hate her mother because her mother is annoying and scold her all the time and even mock about her academic results. She was very frustrated. I would like to calm her down, but I can't entirely agree on what she said, because this will add fuel to her hatred to her mother. (Luckily I knew it's not really hate, but a moment of frustration). Still, I have to calm her down. I asked her about the thing that lead her to such frustration. She was unwilling to share at first, but after I try to make some assertions, guessing what the situation was, she told me that her mother scold her because she was not studying despite the fact that she was studying all day.
What I did is I spoke from her standpoint, agreeing to what she said (her mother is XXXX annoying) while playing down her emotions. I understand her frustration because I have been in similar situations before, except the fact that I was able to keep myself calm and keep my emotions out of it. I drew a comparison to the situation I had before, and she felt I really understand. I told her how I dealt with the situation and urged her to do the same. Keep calm and stay out of it. She followed what I said and calmed down.
In this situation, I used a lot of the"listening not listening" skills (AMPP and ABC), to empathize her. But the fact is even elementary school students know this. They always ask questions, they compare each others points, built on each other, and mimic what their teacher said etc. What they do not know is that when there is some disagreement between you and the listenee, you don't have to say it directly, but you can ask more about it the understand more. You can draw comparisons to indirectly show your point. This way your voice is much more acceptable to the listenee, and you can understand more about them.
Companion post: Presentation box
This post is not about the ENG198 assignment. This is just to share the idea to anyone interested.
The presentation box is a box that encapsulates small processing power to decode a powerpoint and communicate with your mobile device via WiFi.
After you have completed your presentation slides, you upload your presentation to the device, and then the device will display your slides. The slide changes according to the inputs given from the mobile device (e.g. swipe across the screen to change slides)
Basically, as the displaying device is a dedicated one, the probability for the presentation to go wrong decreases significantly. You won't see a blank screen because your device ran out of battery, and you can take hold of your presentation device (e.g. iPhone/iPad/Android smartphone). It can display notes and other things you don't want your audience to see. And they are connected wirelessly without
power consuming wireless display technology.
Though technical specifications may change, but I dream the "presentation box" as about the size of a hard drive (3.5") so it can be carried around easily, while packing processing power similar to a smartphone. It should possess a USB port for downloading presentation files, WiFi obviously to communicate with the host device. Video output ports (HDMI and VGA) for outputting and a power port to provide steady power supply. Battery is optional, but I prefer it to be not included, so the device can be more compact and people will stay on more reliable power source.
The presentation box is a box that encapsulates small processing power to decode a powerpoint and communicate with your mobile device via WiFi.
After you have completed your presentation slides, you upload your presentation to the device, and then the device will display your slides. The slide changes according to the inputs given from the mobile device (e.g. swipe across the screen to change slides)
Basically, as the displaying device is a dedicated one, the probability for the presentation to go wrong decreases significantly. You won't see a blank screen because your device ran out of battery, and you can take hold of your presentation device (e.g. iPhone/iPad/Android smartphone). It can display notes and other things you don't want your audience to see. And they are connected wirelessly without
power consuming wireless display technology.
Though technical specifications may change, but I dream the "presentation box" as about the size of a hard drive (3.5") so it can be carried around easily, while packing processing power similar to a smartphone. It should possess a USB port for downloading presentation files, WiFi obviously to communicate with the host device. Video output ports (HDMI and VGA) for outputting and a power port to provide steady power supply. Battery is optional, but I prefer it to be not included, so the device can be more compact and people will stay on more reliable power source.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Video blog - Engineered object
A video is made up of thousands of pictures. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Click here to view the video:
video > 1,000,000 words :-)
Click here to view the video:
Friday, October 8, 2010
Toulmin's model for arguments
Toulmin's model for arguments divides arguments into five critical components, namely ground, warrant, backing, qualifier and claim. They align in a order similar to the one below.
However, I want to point out that Toulmin's model is designed to analyze human arguments, not for either scientific proof or seeking solutions. This model cannot operate when we don't have a claim, an assumption or a hypothesis to work with in the first place. This is exactly what Toulmin thought about developing an argument, which should be started with a claim and then proving it, as opposed to looking at the grounds we have a extending outwards.
To prove my point, I will use two examples of problems I faced.
The first is a problem from my calculus course. (I assume as engineers, everyone here knows about calculus) I want to find out what is the derivative of xx. If I use the Toulmin's model now, I will start with the claim. But then I have no idea what the derivative is, I cannot claim or hypothesize anything. I tried to looking at the graph, but from what I learnt, I have no idea what the derivative is. Although I do have the grounds, which are the definition of derivative and the rules of differentiation, I won't know what to put in all the other boxes, because the warrant is the bridge between ground and the claim. You cannot build a bridge without land on the other side, right?
Now I am stuck here, essentially helpless. I can try to guess something and use the Toulmin's model to try to prove it, but the probability that I will get the correct answer is very small. This method of trial and error is not very effective and will take me decades to solve a simple question like that.
 |
| Graph of y=xx from Wolfram Alpha |
Of course, all of you who have taken Calculus know that the answer is y' = xx(ln x + 1). But my point is that the Toulmin's model is not designed for, and not useful in solving problems which we cannot come up with a reasonable hypothesis.
The second one is Collatz conjecture. You who have read my previous post should know what it is, it is an unsolved mathematical problem. The problem is to prove that for any positive integer I put into N below, it will eventually reach 1.
- if N is odd, give 3N + 1
- if N is even, give N/2
Put the new given value into N and loop
Now that I have a claim: it will reach one eventually, I suppose I can use Toulmin's model to help. Then I created the box below:
I have support from computations to see that the rule applies for each and every positive integer from 1 up to 5.764x1018 (Wikipedia). Seeing that it still holds up to an integer so large, I would claim that the rule holds for all positive integers. There is when I fall into the trap of this model: scientific research requires a high degree of accuracy and you never know that the number after the last one you tested will break the rule or not until you test it. But then numbers are infinite, so you cannot test all numbers. When I try to support my claim, I have to also be aware of accuracy requirements and generalizations. While human arguments tend to have a reasonable tolerance to uncertainty, science does not. This is where the weakness of Toulmin's model is exposed. When trying to apply the Toulmin's model, especially when outside of its designed scope, we have to be very aware of the limitations and possible failures.
After all, this Toulmin's model is a good model in its originally designed scope: human arguments. Review what I have written in this passage, I am trying to convince a claim that this model cannot be used to find solutions and may fail if the subject is a scientific research requiring high degree of accuracy and generalization. Here is where I can use the Toulmin's model to analyze my arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)