Self-Awareness Question: What You Do

[ysabetwordsmith]

Folks have mentioned an interest in questions and conversations that make them think. So I've decided to offer more of those. This is the current list on self-awareness.

71. What can you do really, really well?

Pretty much anything that involves words made of language.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

Turns out, building computers.. when I'm not stymied by parts that should be good but aren't. I had no idea it was supposed to be this difficult thing that people avoided doing.

I suppose there's a lesson in that.

*laugh*

[ysabetwordsmith]

Yeah, I've done impossible things without noticing.

"You broke the Pimsleur Language Test."

"It wasn't very hard."

"Nobody scores perfect on these things."

"But they gave us the answers!"

Re: *laugh*

[ng_moonmoth]

Reminds me of my experience with the quantitative portion of the Graduate Record Examination. I showed up at the appointed time, went through the questions, finished up, checked to make sure all my answers were correct (they were), wasn't sure it should be this easy, checked all the answers again, still found no errors, and turned in my answer sheet with what turned out to be a perfect score fifty minutes into a three-hour time window. And wondered whether any person headed for a math graduate program wouldn't be able to do the same.

Re: *laugh*

[ysabetwordsmith]

You might be surprised. I scored in the 66% nationally in math.

I'm lucky if I can get the same answer three times running on a calculator. Somehow, a majority of people are worse than that. But at least I had the sense to choose a career with minimal math, and a partner who excels at math.

Then I look at the state of the economy, government budget, etc. and conclude that many of the lower two-thirds of America did not have that sense. :/

Re: *laugh*

[ng_moonmoth]

Surprised at the general state of numeracy in the world? Not at all. Seems too many people start with the idea that "numbers are hard". Then, when you pile on the stultifying ways the subject is taught, it's no surprise to me that so many people get bored and give up on it. Not to mention all the attempts to make it more "interesting" or "exciting" ("So simple, that only a child can do it!"), that lead people further away from practical applications and confuse the heck out of them in the process.

I think things would align a lot better with the world at large if, rather than starting with a lot of rote stuff, very early math education started with practical things: how to make change, how to divide something into servings, rough estimation, and so forth. But I'm not sure how likely that is to take place in an environment where so many who are charged with teaching it struggle with the skills required to work with it themselves.

But that's a topic for another discussion. I was expressing surprise not that the test seemed ridiculously easy for someone pursuing advanced education in the field the test allegedly measured, but that it seemed far too easy for anyone pursuing advanced education in any field that routinely dealt with numbers. Frex, I would expect anyone pursuing a graduate degree in any of the physical sciences to emerge with a perfect or nearly perfect score. And you could probably throw in anyone in a field where statistical methods were an important part of research. And this was at the very beginning of the age of pocket calculators, where one more routinely had to exercise their numerical skills to get any results at all.

Re: *laugh*

[(Anonymous)]

>>...math education started with practical things: how to make change, how to divide something into servings, ...<<

I haven't had to teach math /as a subject/, but I have taught ESL which includes numbers. I'll start with the numbers, and that very quickly gets mixed with recognizing money. (Other skills include counting checks, writing checks, and recognizing fractions/percentages as apply to sales.)

Re: *laugh*

[(Anonymous)]

Counting *change.*

[kengr]

There are words *not* made of language? :-)

I seem to be fairly good at proofreading other people's stuff. Alas, I can't deal with the ones who need it worst (gave up on someone who couldn't get the idea that if xxx was wrong _here_ it was also wrong _there_)

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think computer languages have words, but you'd probably want to double-check with an actual programmer.

I'd still count sign languages as having words b/c they separate-then-label chunks of reality the same way spoken languages do, just not labeling with speech.

Not language, but communication technicaly doesn't have to involve words, just a transfer of concepts in any mutually suitable method(s).

[kengr]

Well, computer languages have things that function a bit like words but they lack a lot of being "real" languages.

As for you last bit, I still recall when I figured out that I *didn't* think in English. I had an obvious (to me) concept and then discovered that rendering this concept into English would take a ridiculous amount of verbiage.

So the "mutually suitable" bit has major fails sometimes.

I think I do some of my thinking with abstract "symbols". And that part of my brain works a lot more like a higher grade version of a perceptron than "normal" brains do.

So symbol X is a point in a multidimensional space define by a bunch of is/is not decision (definitions).

That *is* the way our brains identify letters, shape and objects. And I do have a strong visual orientation, though I have a stronger "physical" orientation when learning many things.

Basically *telling* me how to run a machine isn't likely to stick, even if you re demonstrating as you go. But telling me what to do *as I'm doing it* works well.

I can use written explanations well, but they have to be well written so I can follow along. But as I discovered dealing with one shrink, I can't learn social stuff that way. I'd need to have someone talking me thru it as I did it or else have some other sort of help that adjusted to what was happening. :-(

[(Anonymous)]

>>As for you last bit, I still recall when I figured out that I *didn't* think in English. I had an obvious (to me) concept and then discovered that rendering this concept into English would take a ridiculous amount of verbiage.<<

I have run into situations where tactile communication or posture/movement are quicker/more efficient ways to ask a question (or make a point) than speaking.

Related: sometimes an idea has so much attendant context that it is very difficult trying to explain it to someone without the context. (This can happen with cross-cultural communication, or between different subcultures, or between differently priviliged groups.)

>>So the "mutually suitable" bit has major fails sometimes.<<

I would say that mutually suitable is a combination of:

1) Being able to produce and recieve the info. (If you are using speech, the other person must be able to hear, if they reply in Sign you must be able to see - or feel if using tactile Sign.)

2) Being able to comprehend the info. (If you cannot understand ASL/computer code/signal flags they do you no good, even if you can perceive them.)

3) Affinity/learning style. (Your preference for hands on learning over written.)

Basically, "mutually suitable" to me means I have to figure out what everyone can perceive and understand, _then_ choose the option with the highest efficiency-mutual-intelligibility.

>>I think I do some of my thinking with abstract "symbols".<<

I've had entire conversations in pictograms. Sometimes adding hand signals, writing, and mishmash words from multiple languages. As long as the idea gets across, it's fine.

If you are interested this is an interesting pictograms language:
https://omniglot.com/writing/blissymbolics.htm

Also movement writing:
https://www.movementwriting.org/

------

Also, now that I think about it some animals will use symbolic meanings to convey concepts without developing a language. (I know a cat who figured out a symbol for the concept "[Want] clean litter human!")

Hmm ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Well, there are languages not made of words.

Words not made of language? I can't think of any at the moment, but I might later. I'm good at breaking koans.

Re: Hmm ...

[(Anonymous)]

I'd say it depends on definition.

You could say that with a closely distinct and labeled piece of reality, the piece is the concept and the label is the word language or no.

Alternately, if a word is by definition a sub-par of a language, than yes, there are no words outside of languages.

Do bugs have bones? No - but only because 'bone' refer to a single piece of a vertebrate exoskeleton, as opposed to a piece of any skeletal system.

[pronker]

I am an excellent driver.

[fuzzyred]

I consider most of my skills to be in the still-acquiring to middling-good range. Although I suppose I do read very well, because I devour all the things written by you and Dialecticdreamer and Siliconshaman, plus actual books (though I've had less time for those lately).

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

If you can keep up with us, your reading skills are excellent.

Re: Yes ...

[fuzzyred]

I do mostly keep up with yous. Some stories I skip cause they aren't my jam, and I'm sure I've missed a few just from oversight, but generally I read whatever is put out.

I was lamenting not reading many physical books last year, hence the new year's goal of one a month, but I felt much less bad about that once Dialecticdreamer said she wrote over 1.2 million words in 2020 O.O Which means I read the equivalent of about 24 50k word novels, and that's before you factoring in your stuff. So I'm goibg to give myself some leeway on the book reading front.

Re: Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I don't count words the same way, but the 2020 January-July collection was 56,882 words and the August-December one was 89,690. That's just the stuff that was sponsored from the fishbowl. Shiv's collection is 858,791 words.

Re: Yes ...

[fuzzyred]

O.O That is a mind boggling amount of words.

Re: Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I never realize how much I've written until I stack it up. I hate math, so I've never been the type to track daily wordcounts and add them. But once the collections are made, there's a tool in MS Word to get the count.

[caera_ash]

I am a somewhat fast reader. Though my twin is much faster.

[(Anonymous)]

I've been told people latch on to me because I treat them like people. (Meanwhile, I confusedly insist that I am terrible with people. Also that treating people like people is basic good manners.)

Also been told I'm a good listener/supportive presence.

I think I'm fairly smart, too, but YMMV if that's good because it causes all sorts of add-on problems.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I've been told people latch on to me because I treat them like people. <<

I've had that happen.

>> (Meanwhile, I confusedly insist that I am terrible with people. Also that treating people like people is basic good manners.) <<

It's basic. The problem is that it isn't common. Despite the claim that manners are meant to smooth interactions, I have far more often seen people use them to hurt each other than to help each other. So anyone who is genuinely mannerly rather than bitchy will stand out.

>> Also been told I'm a good listener/supportive presence. <<

That is a valuable skill.

>> I think I'm fairly smart, too, but YMMV if that's good because it causes all sorts of add-on problems. <<

Yeah, people lie about wanting intelligent educated folks, but they really hate it when it happens.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

>>It's basic. The problem is that it isn't common.<<

Maybe that's one of the reasons I feel I don't get along with people, if my minimum standards far exceed what my culture expects. (And then I don't get much practice bonding with people - or alternately I decide that people aren't worth the hassle.)

>>...I have far more often seen people use them to hurt each other than to help each other.<<

Dominance displays? Which would be affected by culture as well as access
to and availibility of resources...

>>Yeah, people lie about wanting intelligent educated folks, but they really hate it when it happens.<<

I wonder if you get the same problem with other supernaries - do folk resent the star athlete, future model, the crazy-skilled artist...?

And if not (or to different degrees) might one be able to learn to hack society enough to fix it to some degree?