UKH

/ The collective intelligence of this forum...

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Minneconjou Sioux on 07 Dec 2018

 

…. is in constant flux, dependant upon the core contributors and how they add and remove themselves from active involvement. 

In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

I'm not saying we don't have exceptionally intelligent individuals but perhaps there is a lack of breadth?

Or perhaps intelligence is the wrong term?

Blue Straggler - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I certainly miss Barra’s counting threads 

summo on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Intellect or knowledge? Some very intelligent people might have a very narrow field of knowledge, because that's the only direction they applied themselves. 

I'd suggest the knowledge of what a decent hut requires is pretty high here. 

Ukc does have a very broad base of occupations and if a random question falls into their field of expertise, even the back ground lurkers speak out. 

Dave Kerr - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

You've clearly not used many other forums or read the comments section on any given news story!

Post edited at 06:10
JoshOvki on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> I'm not saying we don't have exceptionally intelligent individuals but perhaps there is a lack of breadth?

I disagree. One if the great things about UKC is you can ask something and someone here will know enough about it. There is a random question on lock picking, something about engineering, the odd thread about climbing. That's just currently.

Moley on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Educated beyond our intelligence?

 

AP Melbourne - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Well if that isn't a contentious post ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ?

Broad generalizations are generally met on here with pretty logical, sensible and well-mannered responses at first but any Qs about fellow members' collective "intelligence" is likely to raise a few heckles. It certainly doesn't sit well with me so I can't/shan't speak for anyone else.

Perhaps you can raise the intelligence level/s of conversation by starting a new thread yourself that we are 'sucked in to' and instinctively feel the need to contribute to?

Am not claiming any moral high ground here coz some of my threads are [deliberately] inane. At least the responses have generally been intelligent though.

Lets have a challenge .... pose each other & everyone else a challenge - and just see who comes out of the woodwork. You first:

 

 

 

john arran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Well I feel like I'm similarly intelligent, or not, to when I've posted on here some time ago. Have you got thicker?

McHeath - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I've only been here a year, so I can't comment on the decline perceived by you, but this is definitely the most enjoyable forum I've ever taken part in. (I've been on many - music, literature, chess, fishing,  cooking, gaming ...). Not only the most interesting, but also the one with the greatest capacity to surprise and delight. I love it!

Wanderer100 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to McHeath:

I'm guessing Minneconjou is getting misty eyed in the same way as our parents and grandparents do about days gone by.........

dunc56 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

LMNI - now that was a golden era. 

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

I find that I feel clever before I come onto UKC, then sometimes I read a thread and realise how thick I am...so on that basis , if we are at the lower end of the scale it doesn't speak much of my intelligence .

wercat on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

It's definitely more polar and emotionally charged at the moment.  That might sap energy that could be more usefully put to modelling aircraft on conveyor belts

 

perhaps reflecting what the current mishap has done to the country

Post edited at 10:11
Gordon Stainforth - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Dare I point out that one 'intelligent' thing to do before expressing such hauteur would be to check your spelling? ;)

minimike - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to dunc56:

There was once a thread about an aeroplane and a treadmill..

Blanche DuBois - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I certainly see plenty of people more than willing to offer advice when asked for (often when not asked for).  Difficult to judge the quality of the advice though, unless it's on a topic that you personally know a lot about.   I do know that on the one subject I do know quite a lot about (having spent more than 20 years doing it professionally) that the advice offered tends to be stated with a lot of confidence, but little accuracy or insight.  Which means I take most of the statements made by most people here with a certain amount of scepticism.

Blanche DuBois - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Dare I point out that one 'intelligent' thing to do before expressing such hauteur would be to check your spelling? ;)


Spelling is correct, but wrong word used?  Is this really a reflection of intelligence anyway?

NottsRich on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

Nowhere near 14 years for me, but I've noticed changes. I've not noticed a change in 'intelligence' or whatever the suitable word for it would be, but I have noticed an increase in negativity over the last few years, both snide remarks etc, and negativity regarding recurring themese (trump/brexit mainly). I seem to remember much more positive/happy conversation overall in past years. Perhaps I'm remembering rose colours...

MonkeyPuzzle - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I'm not sure what you're saying. Could you write it again using shorter words please?

kathrync - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I think intelligence is the wrong term.   As someone else said, I also disagree about lack of breadth - while of course individuals may lack breadth, as a community we have an enormous breadth of knowledge as demonstrated by the mind-boggling array of discussions in the off-topic forums.

I do agree that it does seem to have become more polarised though.  People seem less willing to engage in sensible debate and more willing to lower themselves to insulting each other when they disagree about things.  I don't think that is anything novel to UKC though - I see that everywhere at the moment.

wbo - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I suspect what you see is not a lack of breadth of posters but a lack of breadth of topic, and a lot of people have stopped posting thanks to the innumerate Brexit posts and associated political slanging matches

Nic on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Well I've been 'ere since it were all fields...

...and the height of intellectual debate reached was "what's your favourite biscuit?"

(toss up between Bourbon and custard cream btw.)

Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Nic:

When I were a lad biggest topic here was evolution. 1,000 messages on one thread, easy!

Now it's all Brexit, Brexit, Brexit.

Eric9Points - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I agree that this forum is the best place I know to come for informed and intelligent debate, however.

I wonder about the demographics. I strikes me that most posters on here are getting on a bit, I wouldn't be surprised if the average age was above 50. I also think it's a bit staid and respectable, boring old fartish if you like. I think back to the days of posters like Rothermere who could give a convincing argument on the advantages of drink driving or Fawksey's discussions on the best lighting for photographing his penis.

Those were the days...

Thugitty Jugitty on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

If we were smarter we might be able to convince one of the resident academics that they are wrong about something. Or anything.

jkarran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

We can gloss over who you consider to be dragging the debate down today but whose inputs are you missing?

jk

krikoman - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to McHeath:

> I've only been here a year, so I can't comment on the decline perceived by you,...

 

It's people like you............

 

McHeath - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Spelling is correct

"Dependant" is wrong.

 

Blue Straggler - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Spelling is correct, but wrong word used?  Is this really a reflection of intelligence anyway?

Oddly enough that "wrong word" feels new to me, although common sense dictates that I must have encountered it before in the correct context where it would make sense (probably in a legal context).

In the OP's case I would say that he's used the wrong spelling for the word he wanted to use. It's a matter of debate though, whether you class that as a spelling error or use of the wrong word, or (as I am doing) something in between....

Dr.S at work - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Nic:

 

> (toss up between Bourbon and custard cream btw.)

One should never do this.

The crumbs can be awkward and their is a real risk of double sogging.

Offwidth - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to wbo:

I always find that specific argument a bit odd.  You can easily ignore such political topics on UKC by turning off "Off Belay" and "The Pub" . The early days did have much more of a community feel and consistency in quality of posts and the loss of that was a dissapointment but it was maybe inevitable with growth. I do still hope we could get some of that back... the various Rocktalk meets, in particular were a big help. I guess much of that community linked function has moved onto places like Facebook. As the site expanded in user numbers over the years I was saddened that quite a few climbers, who gave helpful advice on the site, left for reasons around what they saw as negativity and idiocy in climbing threads and a few due to disagreements with the site (rules and climbers don't always mix well) but new good posters came in as well. Either major losses from departures are much rarer in recent years (the likes of the sad news of Chris aside) or I'm missing some very obvious changes. The very significant site improvements in news, articles, logbooks and other content does leave a rather flat forum quality and quantity looking like a weaker child but the amount of things  we could post on, in an increasingly interconnected world, has never been larger... so just post, and try and be positive and fair in debate.

As someone who has been around from the start, and supposedly high IQ and certainly Oxbridge educated, I'm broadly as dumb as the next person but as curious as I've ever been and I still see good, kind and surprising stuff here. If anything things have improved over the last two years (AP is in particular a very welcome 'new' contributer). I'm suspicious about intelligence and cleverness: most I've met who think they fit these labels are just not well educated or self aware enough (see the link below for some modern TV  fun on the subject). I also know the moderators and bad behaviour does get tackled and really bad behaviour leads to bans. Someone above talked about newspaper comment sections... when you think things are bad here, go read them.

Season 2 Episode 5:

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/young-sheldon/on-demand/67713-005

 

 

Post edited at 12:49
Toby_W on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

Have a like   We're never wrong and if it seems that way you've misunderstood your question ;-)

You can tell there are some very bright people on here (not necessarily with bits of paper) because of the humor, the number of times my day has been lifted and my face cracked by a smile because of a comment like yours or others on this very thread.  This I think is one thing that makes these forums great.

Cheers

Toby

 

TheDrunkenBakers - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Nic:

Caramel HobNob I think you'll find

> Well I've been 'ere since it were all fields...

> ...and the height of intellectual debate reached was "what's your favourite biscuit?"

> (toss up between Bourbon and custard cream btw.)

 

Post edited at 12:39
Siward on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Nic:

Ginger snaps

 

McHeath - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to krikoman:

It's my mission in life to lower the tone wherever I go.

subtle on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> …. is in constant flux, dependant upon the core contributors and how they add and remove themselves from active involvement. 

> In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

> I'm not saying we don't have exceptionally intelligent individuals but perhaps there is a lack of breadth?

I may not have the intelligence but I certainly have the breadth!

People come, people go, some more missed than others but on the whole it is one forum I feel comfortable asking a question on pretty much anything and know I will get a reasonable answer from.

And there will be irrelevance as well, which isn't a bad thing.

 

Offwidth - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Siward:

The half man half type? 

Offwidth - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to subtle:

Even  breadth isn't simple. My belt size is unchanged but faces an increasing overhang above.

Hardonicus - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Have you considered a median based analysis? That way the impact of outliers like the Lemming, which tend to adversely effect the mean, can be reduced...

Post edited at 12:48
toad - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

There are some very high profile academics here (mention no names, but rhymes with mole), but without a proper challenge, they can get a wee bit pompous and didactic. I didn't agree with their position most of the time, but prof chappel made some of the religious threads more interesting than they have been latterly

Offwidth - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Hardonicus:

I like The Lemming. In the UKC family, he is a noisy and slightly random uncle who shouldn't maybe say as much as he should but certainly kills conversational lulls.

subtle on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> I like The Lemming.

Me too.

Offwidth - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to toad:

That's bogus academia though as the man you refer to hasn't peer review published anything in the areas he most obsesses on here. Academics are still people and can be real arses off their academic subject (and sometimes even in it).

krikoman - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to McHeath:

> It's my mission in life to lower the tone wherever I go.


Good work

Andy Hardy on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to McHeath:

That mission has become much easier in recent years.

L Prolier than Thou - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Indeed, too many lefties, too many top ropers and far too many of the lumpen proles.

 

DJViper would now be seen as good counsel.

Timmd on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I think it's gone from 'exploratory ponderings' towards 'this is what I reckon' in nature a little bit. 

 

Post edited at 15:15
cb294 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

> If we were smarter we might be able to convince one of the resident academics that they are wrong about something. Or anything.

No chance. Being right all the time is our profession.

wercat on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

forget collective intelligence, what could the collective skills of UKC accomplish, away from grit...

arch - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> …. is in constant flux, dependant upon the core contributors and how they add and remove themselves from active involvement. 

> In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

> I'm not saying we don't have exceptionally intelligent individuals but perhaps there is a lack of breadth?

> Or perhaps intelligence is the wrong term?

 

Now, If it was a "Brexit whinging" or "Pointless topic posting" competition, we'd be on the podium, maybe even a Gold. Definitely top of the league.

 

......And a good each way bet for us in the "Can you post a link to that" world championships

;-)

kathrync - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to cb294:

> No chance. Being right all the time is our profession.

I wrote this almost exactly word for word earlier and then deleted it, so I am glad someone else said it

Offwidth - on 18:14 Fri
In reply to cb294:

..... I'm assuming that's at least a bit tongue-in-cheek. My long experience is academia is full of human traits which sadly occasionally become more important than our subjects (where even in Physical Science the research front line can be pretty opaque at times... in our search for a least worst models to explain difficult data).  There has to be a middle ground where we accept this human reality without turning it into a major conspiracy, like say Peterson does.  He pontificates well outside of his subject expertise, spouts pseudoscience and avoids peer review alongside spinning disparaging conspiracy stories about fellow academics and flirts with the alt right. All very worrying and hypocritical. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

Its a bit sad that some regular UKC posters play a game of Peterson lite.

There is an analogy to complaints about UKC here:  the forums have faults and there is no good reason to be in denial about this; nor to go well over the top about the seriousness of the situation and reject the forums altogether.

Post edited at 18:15
The Wild Scallion on 18:28 Fri
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

> …. is in constant flux, dependant upon the core contributors and how they add and remove themselves from active involvement. 

> In an entirely subjective assessment, based on the 14 years I've been here, I'd say that we are on the lower end of the scale.

> I'm not saying we don't have exceptionally intelligent individuals but perhaps there is a lack of breadth?

> Or perhaps intelligence is the wrong term?

Maybe you should suggest a personality assessment and intelligence exam to the mods.

 

Post edited at 18:28
marsbar - on 18:32 Fri
In reply to Dave Kerr:

I think he is comparing ukc at different points in time not ukc vs other places?

marsbar - on 18:41 Fri
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

I'm not convinced you are correct.   (Without meaning to sound big headed, it's a fact ) I'm above average intelligence  (roughly 98 pecentile) according to the not entirely perfect IQ test.

When I post on here I feel pretty average and there are plenty of people obviously much brighter than me.  I certainly wasn't Oxbridge material.  

Having said that there are plenty of extremely clever non academic types too. 

Post edited at 18:43
marsbar - on 18:45 Fri
In reply to Nic:

I will never recover from the demise of dark chocolate ginger nuts.  

marsbar - on 18:48 Fri
In reply to Eric9Points:

Fawksey wasn't staid but he wasn't a youngster either.  I don't think it's about age, it's personalities.  Some people act middle aged when they are teenagers and others never grow up.  

cb294 - on 18:54 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

kathrync spotted the sarcastic intent better than you, but in most situations I refuse to include emoticons or other such abominations to make my intent clear. The ambiguity is essential: It should be just about possible to hold the proffered view.

Adding a smiley pretty much kills the point of a sarcastic comment, same category as starting a joke by giving away the punch line.

CB

edit: comparing me to Peterson is scandalous and unforgivable!

Post edited at 18:56
Eric9Points - on 19:41 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> Fawksey wasn't staid but he wasn't a youngster either.  I don't think it's about age, it's personalities.  Some people act middle aged when they are teenagers and others never grow up.  


Oh I realise that. It just strikes me that this forum is like a climbing club I used to be a member if. It's full of the same old faces, now mainly retired with little young blood to sustain it.

Minneconjou Sioux on 22:10 Fri
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

In my OP I started out using the word "personality" instead of intelligence but changed my mind. Perhaps I shouldn't have? I'm not sure personality is correct either though.

I think most posters on here are focussing on the sum of the intelligence of the individuals as a way of measuring the intelligence of the forum but I'm not sure that is the correct way to look at this.

Think of something like Mother Nature having intelligence to help conceptualise where I'm going with this.

Is the forum acting as intelligently as it has in the past. Subjectively, I think not but clearly there is no way of measuring this.

FactorXXX - on 22:34 Fri
In reply to cb294:

> edit: comparing me to Peterson is scandalous and unforgivable!

I've got a feeling that he isn't comparing you to Peterson, but is instead having a cheap shot at someone else...

 

Offwidth - on 23:20 Fri
In reply to cb294:

I apologise if you thought that comparison might possibly have been my intent. You seem a voice of sense to me. No sarcasm intended just to be clear.

Offwidth - on 23:59 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

Hardly cheap. Many of us have some level of inappropriate obsessions. What I object to is dressing such things up in bullshit academic terms and ignoring any academic evidence to the contrary; worse still use rhetoric to dismiss genuine research as politically biased. If people claim little but passion I can regard it as cheap to attack it on intellectual terms  and so let it pass, but academics like Peterson, and his academic minions, who claim some great insight well outside their expertise and use bullshit to present it, are vital and legitimate targets, otherwise academia becomes a circus. The minion who annoys me most doesn't rhyme with mole (he's nore fun than annoying and could be a genuine public good one day, with some contact with real people and some edges knocked off).

Post edited at 00:11
Offwidth - on 00:06 Sat
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Gaia says don't worry, it's just a mid life crisis. What do you expect with the posting dominance of middle aged men. They are not actually stupid, they just sometimes behave like they are.

Post edited at 00:07
Minneconjou Sioux on 00:14 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

So is "the posting dominance of middle aged men" verifying my hypothesis? 

Offwidth - on 00:26 Sat
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Maybe if you can express ir right. I used to muse on the same subject but now feel it was maybe mostly just a middle age male obsession ;-)

Post edited at 00:28
Minneconjou Sioux on 02:18 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

Oh, I don't doubt it. But I ain't dead yet so a little middle aged male musing is likely to continue. I still feel its a valid observation though.

Timmd on 02:19 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

> ..... I'm assuming that's at least a bit tongue-in-cheek. My long experience is academia is full of human traits which sadly occasionally become more important than our subjects (where even in Physical Science the research front line can be pretty opaque at times... in our search for a least worst models to explain difficult data).  There has to be a middle ground where we accept this human reality without turning it into a major conspiracy, like say Peterson does.  He pontificates well outside of his subject expertise, spouts pseudoscience and avoids peer review alongside spinning disparaging conspiracy stories about fellow academics and flirts with the alt right. All very worrying and hypocritical. 

That's the best summing up of Peterson I have heard. 

 

cb294 - on 07:13 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

No worries, my misunderstanding! Also, my complaining was obviously (at least I hope so) overdone.

CB

 

Offwidth - on 09:58 Sat
In reply to Timmd:

The low number of dislikes indicate I could still improve the description a tad. The man who complained about academic bullying (with some justification), lashed out way beyond the problem in response and set up an army of anti-PC social media bullies, many of whom are immune to intellectual argument. You can't be regarded as an academic anymore if you know you are always right, won't engage with academic peers and tollerate an army of thugs. The history of Science in particular has too many interesting tales of great intellects let down by the politics of their peers who instead of playing the iconoclastic public rebel, dug in and proved their critics wrong and cemented big steps forward, despite the politics.

Robert Durran - on 10:22 Sat
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

UKC makes me feel reasonably intelligent but hopelessly ignorant; there is an extraordinary breadth of knowledge on here.

Maybe the term you might be looking for is "collective wisdom"?

Muttly on 13:31 Sat
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Sometime UKC is greater than the sun of its parts and sometimes less. I have been around less and less recently.

Nevis-the-cat - on 20:55 Sat
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Forum intelligence is inversely proportional to the number of tapir and owl related threads.

 

At the moment, it's thick as mince and there are no owl and tapir threads. 

 

Anyone who mentions correlation and causation, will get poked in the eye.... 

 

twice

 

with a pangolin

 

 

 

 

wintertree - on 21:19 Sat
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

One of the big flaws with humans appears to be collective intelligence.  Edit: Not with humans but with all brain based intelligence known so far.

If you put two equally intelligent people in one room, you do not have the equivalent of one person who is twice as intelligent.

Beyond about 4 or 5 people you don’t see much intelligence gain at all, just the emergence of middle management.

This isn’t really surprising - intelligence emerges from a hyper connected brain that has roughly 10^10 neurones each connected to the order of 10^3 of their colleagues, each carrying a bit of information once per second, giving a communication bandwidth of roughly 10^13 bits/sec of information exchange.

Two people talking manage maybe 200 words per minute and some facial expressions, giving perhaps 10^2 bits/sec of information exchange.

This is the real future importance of direct machine-brain interfaces.  It’s not about commanding your toaster without lifting a finger, it’s about raising the connectedness of multiple human intelligences so that collective intelligence scales better.  

 

Post edited at 21:26
cb294 - on 10:53 Sun
In reply to wintertree:

<rant>

Collective intelligence / wisdom of the crowds may be fashionable but is IMO widely overrated. 

Eat more shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong....

Of course, asking many people the same question in parallel is always more likely to yield good advice among the chaff than asking fewer people individually.

Distinguishing the two is tricky, though. Simply going with the majority will not work or, at least, not reliably.

I get annoyed with school assignments asking students to "research" some issue, with is merely an euphemism for copy/pasting the relevant wikipedia page.

Wikipedia is great (and I both contribute and donate), but to use it properly you need to be able to tell whether the article is written by someone who knows about the subject, or e.g. someone with a political agenda.

What school should do is to practise quick plausibility checks. Rapid bullshit detection is an essential skill in times of information overflow.

However, for that you need a solid body of factual knowledge, which is dropped from curricula in favour of ill defined soft skills.

No wonder our societies are going down the drain intellectually.

</rant>

CB

deepsoup - on 14:36 Sun
In reply to cb294:

> No wonder our societies are going down the drain intellectually.

[citation needed]

 

;-)

 

wintertree - on 14:40 Sun
In reply to deepsoup:

> [citation needed]

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1737565/ (Accessed 2018-12-09, 14:40 UT).

 

Minneconjou Sioux on 16:42 Sun
In reply to cb294:

> > However, for that you need a solid body of factual knowledge, which is dropped from curricula in favour of ill defined soft skills.

So I'm curious. What constitutes a "body of factual knowledge" and how do you determine which factual knowledge to include and which to exclude?

 


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.