According to a study published several years ago, mainstream languages seem to operate on an information density/speed tradeoff [1].The authors found that languages that are spoken faster seem to encode less information per syllable than those uttered at a slower pace.
This does seem to suggest that biology may be the limiting role in controlling the rate at which humans convey information. Indeed, the language mentioned in the article seems almost laughably cryptic and dense. However, I feel that the limitation of the mentioned study results from the fact that it treats information on a relatively limiting per syllable basis. Quijada seems to suggest that an artificially constructed language has the ability to incorporate all the implicit meanings of a phrase that are left unsaid in normal conversation.
Ultimately, while Quijada's project seems quite unlikely to catch on among those who are not fringe pseudoscientists, it poses interesting philosophical questions about the nature of speech and communication and perhaps earns its title as a "conceptual-art project."
The article seems to support the information density / speed tradeoff, in hinting several times that the language's inventor puts at least as much cognitive effort into agglutinating syllables to form a word in his language as he would into joining words to make a sentence in a second language.
That's really interesting, I had never really thought about it like that before. Can you elaborate a little more about your in experience in the West versus somewhere else?
While I do agree this is an issue, how would you actually go about solving it? I mean, what useful contribution can someone make in math without having learned algebra first? You need to start with the fundamentals before you can do actually important things. In fact, it seems that the ability to suck it up and "just do it" without any immediate gratification is what sets other cultures apart with respect to education.
One area where I think young people can do potentially important things is with computers, especially with programming. With only a small base of knowledge, it is possible to do many original and useful things. When I was 15, I wrote apps that were used by hundreds on thousands of people, and I don't think it requires any special talent.
They don't necessarily need to do something productive for society, but they can still 'create'. For example, my early math classes were designed around questions. When we came into the room we would break up into groups, and spend the first half of (the 90 minute) class trying to answer between 1 and 5 problems, after which their was a class discussion on the problems and any tangents they lead to, and they teacher may, or may not, point out things we missed.
On the contrary, the Coursera courses that I've taken have been nothing less than top notch. The teachers have been great and easy to understand, the programming assignments challenging and relevant, and the whole experience felt polished and well done. I did try one Udacity course, but quit because I felt it wasn't challenging and poorly done. I don't think it's fair to compare Khan Academy and Coursera, since they are teaching far different conent (algebra vs. undergraduate level courses)
I think he's referring to high school, where the selection of computer courses is far more limited. At my high school right now (in the United States), the only computer course covers using MS Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. Absolutely no programming courses whatsoever.
(As a side note, I self-studied AP Computer Science and it isn't much better. Its pretty much all Java syntax and logic with a few sorting algorithms thrown in so that they can call it "computer science").
Current high schooler in the US here. I feel that today the trend is definitely more towards looking things up as opposed to memorizing them. For example, in my chemistry class, we always got a periodic table (with weights) and were given things like Planck's constant. We did, however, have to memorize some of the more basic ones such as speed of light and Avogadro's number. With regards to math, all tests involving more than trivial amounts of math you get a calculator, so I have never even thought of memorizing logs or exponents.
"I don't know the answers because I do not need to clutter my head with the answers you seek. I hire smart young people from your schools who have memorized information(like the indians) that you think is intelligence. My job is to keep my head clear of such clutter and trivial facts so that I can think" Henry Ford
Or at least, it's attributed to Einstein. It's a common enough sentiment, though, I'm sure I've independently said similar things myself.
On the other hand, it can easily be taken too far. Sometimes a random factoid isn't just a random factoid, it's part of the scaffolding on which you hang your knowledge. If you have to go to your periodic table to look up things like "Carbon" and "Hydrogen" you're never gonna have an intuitive understanding of chemistry.
You've got a small typo: "We are user-oriented, everything is about u, the user." Should be "you" Also, "We believe in a good experience experience..." You repeated "experience"
> There is no way to link to an individual page, so while the manuscript is "online" it is not addressable as part of the linked web. Scholars who write about the manuscript will be unable to link to a specific item or to share linked-data with one another.
You can add a /n to the end of the URL, where n is the page you want it to point to.
This does seem to suggest that biology may be the limiting role in controlling the rate at which humans convey information. Indeed, the language mentioned in the article seems almost laughably cryptic and dense. However, I feel that the limitation of the mentioned study results from the fact that it treats information on a relatively limiting per syllable basis. Quijada seems to suggest that an artificially constructed language has the ability to incorporate all the implicit meanings of a phrase that are left unsaid in normal conversation.
Ultimately, while Quijada's project seems quite unlikely to catch on among those who are not fringe pseudoscientists, it poses interesting philosophical questions about the nature of speech and communication and perhaps earns its title as a "conceptual-art project."
[1] http://rosettaproject.org/blog/02012/mar/1/language-speed-vs...