What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

The alphabet song is literally the letters in order. Pretty useful when filing.

[Berkut]

You did it wrong then.  I can still remember my ABC's and the song we sung in grade 1 to learn the alphabet.  I can still remember that A squared + B squared = C squared.  And I am old 

I don't think DGuller is arguing that children shouldn't learn the alphabet or how to count to 10.

The song you learn in grade 1 to learn the alphabet is pointless. Do you remember enough geometry so that you can solve practical geometry questions? If not, remembering that A^2 + B^2 = C^2 isn't meaningful either--it is just a single element of a series of things you memorized that is pointless on its own. Can you tell us the proof that A^2 + B^2 = C^2?

You don't need the proof to find the equation useful. WTF?

The proofs for almost all math equations are generally an order of magnitude harder to understand than the equation. That is why the equation is so damn useful!

Have you seen the proof for pi, for example? It takes up a couple chalkboards. Its kind of awesome, actually, but I sure as hell don't remember it.

But if you asked me to estimate the circumference or area of a circle, I could answer that pretty much immediately.

Rote memorization is not replacement for actual understanding. That doesn't make it useless. Of course it is useful.

[Maximus]

There are some things that rote learning is good for.  Basic math, basic geography, stuff like that.  Knowing that sort of thing provides a basis for later acquiring a deeper understanding of various topics.

Okay, maybe multiplication tables are an exception where rote is called for.  Maybe.

Basic geography, on the other hand, I don't buy it.  I learned basic geography, and more than basic geography, in fifth and sixth grade in Ukraine.  Exactly zero of it stuck with me, because it was pure memorization of things I didn't give a flying fuck about.  Geography that did stick with me was one that I learned as part of learning something interesting, such as strategy games or history (and by history I mean real history, not sets of events and dates).

I don't think the fact that you don't remember those facts is an argument in support of the position that rote memorization is useless.

Separately, I think rote memorization can be useful in cases where it bootstraps or facilitates further leaning.

[DGuller]

I'm not saying that one shouldn't remember anything, rather I'm questioning the utility of making people remember something by rote memorization.  If you need something often enough, it'll get ingrained in your memory anyway.  Same goes for the details of the subject you're interested in. 

If neither applies, then rote memorization is largely pointless, since our brains are good at expunging unnecessary or unwanted information.  The time spent on rote memorization would've been better spent on working on something that would as a side effect plant the knowledge into your brain, and it would also make people more enthusiastic about learning. 

[dps]

I’m not saying that one shouldn’t remember anything, rather I’m questioning the utility of making people remember something by rote memorization.  If you need something often enough, it’ll get ingrained in your memory anyway.  Same goes for the details of the subject you’re interested in. 

Schoolchildren rarely need anything they're taught in school until after they're out of school.  If the standard is that they should only learn the things they actually think they need at the time, you can pretty much stop trying to teach them anything after potty training.

[DGuller]

They may not need to know a lot, but they tend to be interested and curious about a lot of things.  Rote memorization is often effective at fixing that.

[Savonarola]

Can you tell us the proof that A^2 + B^2 = C^2?

Why yes; take a square and inscribe a second square so that the vertices of the second touch the sides of the first.  Let's call the length of the interior square C; the segments of the exterior square bisected by the interior square will be A and B.  To calculate the area of the interior square we can either calculate it directly:

C^2

or take the area of the outer square (A+B)^2 and subtract out the area of the four extraneous triangles:

(A+B)^2 - 4*(.5AB)
A^2+2AB+B^2 - 2AB
A^2 + B^2

Hence A^2 + B^2 = C^2



Knowing how to do proofs is crucial to understanding advanced mathematics.  Unfortunately that's not what's tested (at least not when I went to college); so students often just learn how to solve the problems (at least that's what I did.)  So even with two years of college level math; I had no real understanding of advanced mathematics.  (I did go back later in life and go through my Calc book again, this time focusing on the proofs.  What value there is in that I'll leave up to you.)

As far as rote learning, I think it is a useful skill.  The mistake I think your making, Guller, is that you're focusing on what is taught.  For instance, like many Americans I had memorize the state capitals when I was in grade school.  Knowing the capital of Vermont (Montpelier) hasn't had a major impact on my life^1.; but later in life I had to memorize several thousand Spanish words; which did have an impact.

1.)  Well, actually that's not quite true.  When I was in Glasgow a couple locals started quizzing me on state capitals.  (We had gotten through the better part of a bottle of Scotch by that point.)  For some reason they knew all of them.

[PDH]

1.)  Well, actually that's not quite true.  When I was in Glasgow a couple locals started quizzing me on state capitals.  (We had gotten through the better part of a bottle of Scotch by that point.)  For some reason they knew all of them.

Did they pronounce Pierre, South Dakota right?

[Savonarola]

1.)  Well, actually that's not quite true.  When I was in Glasgow a couple locals started quizzing me on state capitals.  (We had gotten through the better part of a bottle of Scotch by that point.)  For some reason they knew all of them.

Did they pronounce Pierre, South Dakota right?

As correctly as anyone can pronounce it with a Glaswegian accent and half a bottle of Scotch in them.

(Probably not; but I really don't remember.)

[alfred russel]

You did it wrong then.  I can still remember my ABC's and the song we sung in grade 1 to learn the alphabet.  I can still remember that A squared + B squared = C squared.  And I am old 

I don't think DGuller is arguing that children shouldn't learn the alphabet or how to count to 10.

The song you learn in grade 1 to learn the alphabet is pointless. Do you remember enough geometry so that you can solve practical geometry questions? If not, remembering that A^2 + B^2 = C^2 isn't meaningful either--it is just a single element of a series of things you memorized that is pointless on its own. Can you tell us the proof that A^2 + B^2 = C^2?

You don't need the proof to find the equation useful. WTF?

The proofs for almost all math equations are generally an order of magnitude harder to understand than the equation. That is why the equation is so damn useful!

Have you seen the proof for pi, for example? It takes up a couple chalkboards. Its kind of awesome, actually, but I sure as hell don't remember it.

But if you asked me to estimate the circumference or area of a circle, I could answer that pretty much immediately.

Rote memorization is not replacement for actual understanding. That doesn't make it useless. Of course it is useful.

I see two purposes to learning geometry:

1) to be able to solve geometry problems,
2) to develop mathematical reasoning.

If you can't solve geometry problems despite remembering a random formula or two, and you have lost the mathematical reasoning (the ability to work the proof), what do you have left?

[grumbler]

Don't argue with DGuller, folks; he was probably in the Teaching Club in university, so knows more than any professional about how children learn.

[Razgovory]

When I applied for a bank job I discovered that I had forgotten how to do long division.

[DGuller]

Don't argue with DGuller, folks; he was probably in the Teaching Club in university, so knows more than any professional about how children learn.

I've seen many such professionals at work over the years.  Some were much better at their craft than others.  Appeal to being a "professional" is rarely a convincing or a useful argument, and even more so when the profession is not that exclusive.

[Syt]

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/07/803904417/lt-col-alexander-vindman-escorted-out-of-the-white-house-his-lawyer-says

Key Impeachment Witness Vindman 'Escorted' From White House, His Lawyer Says

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine expert at the National Security Council who became a star witness in the House impeachment hearings on President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, was escorted out of the White House on Friday, his lawyer said, adding Trump had "decided to exact revenge."

"There is no question in the mind of any American why this man's job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth," David Pressman of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP said in a statement.

"The truth has cost LTC Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy. He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: he followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril. And for that, the most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge," Pressman said.

The White House and National Security Council were not immediately available for comment.

Earlier on Friday, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Vindman would be leaving. "I'm not happy with him. You think I'm supposed to be happy with him? I'm not. They'll make that decision. You'll be hearing," Trump said.

Here's the full statement from Alexander Vindman's lawyer David Pressman:

Today, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was escorted out of the White House where he has dutifully served his country and his President. He does so having spoken publicly once, and only pursuant to a subpoena from the United States Congress.

There is no question in the mind of any American why this man's job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.

During his decades of service to this country, LTC Alexander Vindman has served quietly but dutifully, and he has served with honor. He came into the public eye only when subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and he did what the law demanded.In recent months, many entrusted with power in our political system have cowered out of fear. And, yet, a handful of men and women, not endowed with prestige or power, but equipped only with a sense of right borne out of years of quiet service to their country made different choices.

They courageously chose to honor their duty with integrity, to trust the truth, and to put their faith in country ahead of fear. And they have paid a price.The truth has cost LTC Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy.

He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: he followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril.  And for that, the most powerful man in the world - buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit - has decided to exact revenge.

LTC Alexander Vindman leaves the White House today. But we must not accept the departure of truth, duty, and loyalty that he represents. In this country right matters, and so does truth. Truth is not partisan. If we allow truthful voices to be silenced, if we ignore their warnings, eventually there will be no one left to warn us.

[Oexmelin]

Yes. It was rumored yesterday.

And, of course, nothing will come of it - yet another abuse of power.