Honestly, I don’t get why trainers continue to make the following idiot statement to explain the difference between training and education.
Would you rather have your 13-year old go to a sex education class or a sex training class?
Honestly, I don’t get why trainers continue to make the following idiot statement to explain the difference between training and education.
Would you rather have your 13-year old go to a sex education class or a sex training class?
I’m not downgrading what you are suggesting, but I don’t want my surgeon to have “learned ONLY by doing”
Go figure. Here’s another exchange between myself and John Howe about the relationships between training and learning.
John Howe wrote:
What is the difference between “measuring” something like EQ, and something like your weight?
If you answer that question with diligence and in depth, you’ll go a long way to understanding measurement, psychometrics, epistemology, the dangers of reification, concepts, and a raft of other mental “stuff”.
In response to a question about the value of doing free (pro bono) work to market a consulting or training business, Robert responds:
I agree that some feel pro bono work is a poor way to generate business, but I’m hesitant to discourage people from giving it a shot. Generally, I’ve found that pro bono speaking (or dirt cheap) doesn’t increase business, but there are exceptions. Some of it is blind luck. Some of it has to do with what you present and how you do it.
Gary Lear posts an excellent message on the issue of literacy and literacy training which we unfortunately can’t reproduce in its entirety, but here’s my commentary.:
> I also want to thank you and Gail for doing such a superb job of
> demonstrating for me what I was trying to explain to Bill earlier about
> why this issue is so hard to deal with and why we’ve made very little
> progress over the past decade or so. It is quite typical to have a
> group of people who have no idea what they are talking about go around
> quoting other people who have no idea what they are talking about,
> making up things as they go, using their own definitions for terms,
I remember my parents, over thirty years ago yelling at me for studying with music blaring. Now, at 50+ I can’t hardly do any two things at the same time. No doubt I’d yell at my kids for the same thing, if I forgot what it was like to have a working brain.
Maybe their minds/brains will compensate as some have already > suggested. I sense that they fight anomie by creating all their online worlds to have a place to better fit into.
Trainers, and others often speak of there being significant generational differences that affect how people learn and interact. That’s the pop psych view but it may not be true at all.
Just for thought provocation, there are actually two different “schools” regarding generational differences. The most common one (e.g. popular one) is that different generations are indeed different and so are labelled — boomer, generation-x, etc.
This one of the examples where a trainer seems to hold beliefs and writes something that has to make your head shake. The key element here is highlighted in red. If you can figure it out and explain it, let me know in commentary.
A Trainer wrote:
On 29 Jul 01, at 18:30, Peter Isackson wrote:
> Don states after an illuminating description of operating a bulldozer,
> “However, I would not say that my buttocks have a new skill. The skill is
> actually in my brain.”
>
> The truth is that it is in both places as the human organism works as a
> whole, unless you are a radical dualist. By the same token I am not
> positing independent intelligence in the members (I mentioned feet as well
> as fingers for the piano).
Peter, marketing, philosophy, etc, aside, I’d figure if you want to make the case that Don’s buttocks “learn” (and fine buttocks they must be to do so), the contention would be more compelling if you could explain
psychologically or physiologically, exactly how this takes place.
Here’s a take on the use of rewards in the workplace.
First, with rewards like this, staff will habituate, so you may get an initial increase in performance, which will fall off rapidly. Or, a bigger problem may arise.
Second, while I can hardly stand Alfie Kohn’s work, the one thing that stands out and I believe is robust and accurate is that the outcomes of reward depend on the PERCEPTIONS of the recipients. IF the rewards
are perceived as manipulative to squeeze out more, negative things happen. This scheme sounds like it could very well be perceived that way.