I think that you will see that this is not a strange title after you read this blog.
Many years ago, when I was still teaching at a major university, while I was preparing to teach a graduate course on "Human Factors Engineering", was my first real exposure to "Natural Education". Rather than forcing students to accept and adjust to some kind of abstract language, why not present the material in their "natural" language? That is speak to them in their "natural language" that all of us humans were born with. People who speak different languages can still communicate and we often forget that fact.
First off, we are mentally more visual or graphical than we are written language oriented. I have pointed out in the past how the spoken language is more "natural" than the written. In the spoken language we can tell the difference between, to, too and two. In the written language they have to invent different spellings that humans have to accept and adjust too. What's wrong with using the 'natural" language and sounds? Look at spelling if you want to see what a mess our written language has made of a spoken language that operated for thousands of years just fine. In our schools, they try to teach a language by writing stuff on the black board when people got by just fine for thousands of years learning a language with out a black board or pencil and paper. People had no problem with learning multiple languages.
Mathematics is one area that has been damaged by their lack of appreciation of the fact that there is also "natural mathematics". Notice the use of black boards and pencils and paper to teach math. That should tip you off that they just might be doing something wrong. The other point is that a large percentage of our student population appear to have some difficulty learning and applying math. Could this be because it is being taught in a way that is not "natural" and does not take advantage of the graphical way that us humans are made? Are you starting to see that there is some kind of "human factor" that we seem to not be taking into account?
Here is another point. I like to hunt deer, which I think is very "natural" for us humans. We have always needed to eat and hunting is one of the proven ways that we have historically found food. I have watched bucks out looking for food or a doe and have noticed that they look over the place very carefully before they enter a new area. They seem to remember what the area looked like the last time they were there and notice if even the smallest thing has changed. Deer may not be that smart, but they appear to have some kind of natural graphical intelligence and ability to identify differences.
I think this is natural for all of us and is both an animal and human factor that we are not taking advantage of in our educational system. Have you noticed that on many IQ tests that they ask you to identify which picture is different our of a set of pictures? This is what I am talking about.
Now, to something that has really got me to thinking about this whole subject and that is Bayes Theorem. If you are not familiar with Bayes Theorem you should do some research. It has to do with statistics and more specifically with medical type diagnosis. One of the reason that I have stumbled back into this area has been my concern with the Covid-19 virus which is a very good example of where it has application. 99% of doctors are unaware of the use or the value of Bayes Theorem in the area of diagnosis and I think that I know the reason. The way that schools and colleges teach about Bayes Theorem is with classical mathematical symbols and the abstract language of mathematics. This whole process is not natural and thus many of us humans who are naturally smart are not programmed for the abstract language of mathematics and for that reason 99% of our doctors are not competent when it comes to the understanding and use of Bayes Theorem. There is a natural way of presenting and teaching about Bayes Theorem that take advantage of the natural programming of us humans, but it is rarely used in our schools and colleges.
Here is a short presentation of Bayes Theorem in a more natural and graphic way. Think of a graphical square that represents the total people in the USA or a single state. Or think about a sample out of that state of 1,000 people, to keep it simple. Now, we are concerned about how many have the covid-19 and are going to randomly test people from that 1,000 group that has 12% who are infected with our test that we know is not 100% accurate, but we do know from prior use of the test, that it will miss 10% of those who actually have the covid-19 virus and will say that 5% of those who don't have the virus, do have it. Sorry, but that is how it works. Even if the test has some errors, it is better than nothing, and we want to better understand the data. We don't want to reject the results just because of a few errors.
We would like to know things like, (1) what are the chances of a person who tests negative actually being negative of the virus and (2) what are the chances of a person who tests positive actually having the virus? These seem like simple questions, but they require an understanding of Bayes Theorem to answer them.
(I am going to stop here and call this chapter 1)
Many years ago, when I was still teaching at a major university, while I was preparing to teach a graduate course on "Human Factors Engineering", was my first real exposure to "Natural Education". Rather than forcing students to accept and adjust to some kind of abstract language, why not present the material in their "natural" language? That is speak to them in their "natural language" that all of us humans were born with. People who speak different languages can still communicate and we often forget that fact.
First off, we are mentally more visual or graphical than we are written language oriented. I have pointed out in the past how the spoken language is more "natural" than the written. In the spoken language we can tell the difference between, to, too and two. In the written language they have to invent different spellings that humans have to accept and adjust too. What's wrong with using the 'natural" language and sounds? Look at spelling if you want to see what a mess our written language has made of a spoken language that operated for thousands of years just fine. In our schools, they try to teach a language by writing stuff on the black board when people got by just fine for thousands of years learning a language with out a black board or pencil and paper. People had no problem with learning multiple languages.
Mathematics is one area that has been damaged by their lack of appreciation of the fact that there is also "natural mathematics". Notice the use of black boards and pencils and paper to teach math. That should tip you off that they just might be doing something wrong. The other point is that a large percentage of our student population appear to have some difficulty learning and applying math. Could this be because it is being taught in a way that is not "natural" and does not take advantage of the graphical way that us humans are made? Are you starting to see that there is some kind of "human factor" that we seem to not be taking into account?
Here is another point. I like to hunt deer, which I think is very "natural" for us humans. We have always needed to eat and hunting is one of the proven ways that we have historically found food. I have watched bucks out looking for food or a doe and have noticed that they look over the place very carefully before they enter a new area. They seem to remember what the area looked like the last time they were there and notice if even the smallest thing has changed. Deer may not be that smart, but they appear to have some kind of natural graphical intelligence and ability to identify differences.
I think this is natural for all of us and is both an animal and human factor that we are not taking advantage of in our educational system. Have you noticed that on many IQ tests that they ask you to identify which picture is different our of a set of pictures? This is what I am talking about.
Now, to something that has really got me to thinking about this whole subject and that is Bayes Theorem. If you are not familiar with Bayes Theorem you should do some research. It has to do with statistics and more specifically with medical type diagnosis. One of the reason that I have stumbled back into this area has been my concern with the Covid-19 virus which is a very good example of where it has application. 99% of doctors are unaware of the use or the value of Bayes Theorem in the area of diagnosis and I think that I know the reason. The way that schools and colleges teach about Bayes Theorem is with classical mathematical symbols and the abstract language of mathematics. This whole process is not natural and thus many of us humans who are naturally smart are not programmed for the abstract language of mathematics and for that reason 99% of our doctors are not competent when it comes to the understanding and use of Bayes Theorem. There is a natural way of presenting and teaching about Bayes Theorem that take advantage of the natural programming of us humans, but it is rarely used in our schools and colleges.
Here is a short presentation of Bayes Theorem in a more natural and graphic way. Think of a graphical square that represents the total people in the USA or a single state. Or think about a sample out of that state of 1,000 people, to keep it simple. Now, we are concerned about how many have the covid-19 and are going to randomly test people from that 1,000 group that has 12% who are infected with our test that we know is not 100% accurate, but we do know from prior use of the test, that it will miss 10% of those who actually have the covid-19 virus and will say that 5% of those who don't have the virus, do have it. Sorry, but that is how it works. Even if the test has some errors, it is better than nothing, and we want to better understand the data. We don't want to reject the results just because of a few errors.
We would like to know things like, (1) what are the chances of a person who tests negative actually being negative of the virus and (2) what are the chances of a person who tests positive actually having the virus? These seem like simple questions, but they require an understanding of Bayes Theorem to answer them.
(I am going to stop here and call this chapter 1)
