Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3DC282F0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DC2E327.email@example.com> <3BDw9.4642$iG2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: how to master electronics, use of transistor, op amp...?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1036264546 22129 22.214.171.124 (2 Nov 2002 19:15:46 GMT)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 19:15:44 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 19:15:47 GMT
"john jardine" wrote in message
> "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
> > > Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > > > "Wafer" wrote in message
> > > I cannot explain why, nor can I explain why my brother can
> > > portraits and entire landscapes with astonishing perfection, while
> > > can't get my hands to draw anything past a stick figure.
> > There is nothing mysterious about this at all. Its all quite
> > if you look deep enough. Have another think on the problem.
> > He always had
> > > this ability.
> > In fact, he didn't. He learnt it. Early researchers used to have
> > idea that putting a French baby in a room with no instruction, it
> > naturally learn French on it own. Surprise, surprise...
> Indeed. But why it is possible for many literate, educated people to
> be useless at learning a second language
There is not a simple answer. It depends on few factores at least, least
of which is that one cannot be good at everthing. It takes to much time
to do so, so we specialise.
Indeed, I know exactly why I am a bad speller. Again it goes back to
>(esp. British people) yet
Clearly this is not supported by any evidence. Abilities, by and large
are pretty uniformly spread amongst the races. I agree that there are
some differences, but your basic claim here is quite nonsense.
> some individuals can be fluent in a dozen.
> Wafer's right!.
No. Not at all.
> Myself, I was born with the simple genetic ability to 'draw'. Totally,
> completely effortless on my part for as long as I can remember. Like
> other kids, the more I 'practised' the more I improved but constantly
> with a large differential in perceived quality.
You need to self evaluate your earlier childhood. Most things have
explanations, if you look hard enough.
> It's definitely built in from birth, as a deep, deep, 'urge' builds
> over a couple of months that can only be completely satisfied by
> drawing or painting something.
This is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing definite about
it all all.
>The clock is then reset. I've no
> practical use for this ability (circuit diagrams only partly cut it!)
> and it was never pursued when I was younger as I found the puzzle of
> 'machinery' to be even more satisfying.
Ite just not as simple as this.
> As Wafer says, we are all not born equal. Over the years I've
> particularly noticed that every single one of us seem to be born with
> some mix of prewired genetic patterning that throughout life will
> predispose or favour us to shine or excel in particular areas.
> Notwithstanding education/training/learning or otherwise.
In all fairness, you have obviously not really studied this much have
> It's the nature-v-nuture debate. The difficulty is in a general
> recognition of this inequality existing. It is most noticeably a
> problem amongst the educators, who because their own prewired talents
> lie in the statistically more prevalent English/Maths area fail to
> recognise or are self blinkered to the view that others may excel in
> areas not concerned with their own specialisms.
> Because of this, a lot of uniquely talented kids who in their own
> areas of excellence have an enormous amount to contribute to our
> society, end up on the education scrapheap. Which in turn sets the
> future course of their life.
> Myself, I feel our fuel tanks are filled 80% with genetics and 20%
> with our environment.
This is pretty much incorrect. For starters, I am actually quite vocal
in support of genetics, and have looked at this in some detail. Indeed,
two simple assumptions explain much about emotion and behaviour, e.g.
1 Traits are continuously and randomly generated, which are subsequently
selected by the environment.
2 Traits are passed on to offspring.
Traits can be either genes, i.e. physical characteristics, or memes,
which are concept/idea characteristics.
The basic assumption that evolution has programmed relatively fixed
abilities into different individuals is fundamentally flawed. This would
be to limiting. Evolution is much more rich and complex than this.
Individuals characteristics are controlled strongly by the environment.
Characteristics, are in essence, software programmable. For example,
most of us feel a bit sick if we see someone get their head chopped off.
Clearly then, there is a *genetic*, physical mechanism that manifests
itself as the emotion "disgust". However, if for example, one was to see
a man with an axe just about to chop of the head of ones own child, and
you blew his brains out first, there might well be no feeling of disgust
at the blood at all. So, it can be seen that the environment is a key
factor in telling one how physical characteristic actually manifest
themselves. The most classic case are the insects that are born with
different colours depending on the temperature.
Certainly, I agree that there must be a select few that excel due to a
preferential genetic disposition, that is, after all part of the basis
of survival of the "fittest". However, the genetic differences between
most individuals are simple not that marked to make a significant impact
on the actual differences observed.
Overall, you need to do some serious reading on the link between
genetics and the enviorment.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.