Lg'S Wife
Craig Emmott
SS> Subject: LG's wife (was Re: Miss Thailand paegant...)
>> The Thais think she is Thai, and of course they assume she is a prostitute
>> when they see her with me. As she is about as far removed from a prostitute
SS> It is not easy to change the world around you. We should not
SS> not give up trying though. For the mean time, we would learn
SS> to live with it somehow. There are still a number of people
SS> who lack the opportunity to see the world like we do.
Exactly! And this is, after all, the whole point. The "young males"
that Lawrence mentioned are upcountry yokels (whether living in
Bangkok or not). Can we expect anything better from someone with 4 or
6 (if they're lucky) years of basic schooling and a very narrow view
of the world? Other countries have the same kind of dead-end kids
with the same mentality. In the UK, for example, where compulsory
schooling is about 11 years, there are the skinheads, boot boys,
Hell's Angels and other assorted yobos. If a farang were to walk past
a bunch of skinheads -- in London, Glasgow, Frankfurt or Melbourne --
with his Asian-looking wife, he'd get similar comments. Likely much
worse. When I was 16 I was stomped by skinheads for no other reason
than I had long hair. At least that doesn't happen in Thailand.
I sure hope no one believes that Thai punks' rude remarks to
foreigners' wives has _anything_ to do with "xenophobia." IMO, it's
nothing more than envy and bravado. Envy of the foreigner's perceived
wealth, envy of a presumed poor country girl who made it big. And
there's an element of acting tough in front of one's buddies. These
yo-yos rarely, if ever, make these comments when alone.
Here's a comparison. In 1980, when I was working in London, I used to
go out for lunch with our office typist, a British national of
Ugandan Indian origin. Occasionally, someone in the street would
shout, "Go home, Paki!" Now _that's_ xenophobia.
A couple of years later I worked for a small Thai company in an area
of Bangkok where foreigners were rarely seen. I often went out to
lunch, or walked to the bus stop with one or other of the female employees
there. Not once, in 18 months, did we ever receive a look, a comment
or a gesture. I attribute this to the fact that we were wearing
business-like clothes.
So I concluded long ago that yokels' rude behaviour towards farangs
with Thai or apparently-Thai females is based on the assumption that
they are (sex) tourists, and that assumption is based solely on the
kind of clothes both are wearing. Well, I guess dress code is still
pretty important in Thailand.
Which reminds me of a story... In 1977 I opened an account at a bank
in one of Bangkok's soon-to-be tourist areas. About the third time I went
there, wearing army fatigues and a sleeveless T-shirt, a supervisor told me
that the manager had asked if I would "dress more politely." A year
or two later, when the tourism boom really got underway, that same
bank was full of hookers wearing no bras and with their asses hanging
out of hot-pants and microskirts, depositing their hard-earned cash.
I had to laugh. Ah, the power of money...
- Craig
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02
--
|Fidonet: Craig Emmott 6:608/11
|Internet: cr...@nwg.nectec.or.th
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
S Saisanit
>
> So I concluded long ago that yokels' rude behaviour towards farangs
> with Thai or apparently-Thai females is based on the assumption that
> they are (sex) tourists, and that assumption is based solely on the
> kind of clothes both are wearing. Well, I guess dress code is still
> pretty important in Thailand.
>
before I came to the U.S. I almost cancel my trip to the ATPAC
meeting in Dallas last month when I learned that the dress code was
suit and tie. Anyway, I got to dress what I felt like since my
baggage decided to make a stop-over somewhere else. :-) We seem to
value 'forms over substances' as to put it so strongly. We have
forms, uniforms and the like to be followed since we first went to
school. We fail to question for reasons behind those and carry them
over. It is this 'suppression' that cause the slow advance of
democracy. I am glad to see some changes happen in the younger
generations. They ask more questions than my generation do!
--
Sittichoke.
"I'm not like them but I can pretend." Kurt Cobain
John Clark
Johnny Lizard.
Craig Emmott
SS> as to put it so strongly. We have forms, uniforms and the like
SS> to be followed since we first went to school. We fail to
SS> question for reasons behind those and carry them over. It is
SS> this 'suppression' that cause the slow advance of democracy.
Perhaps getting rid of uniforms would help promote Western-style
individualism in Thailand?
SS> am glad to see some changes happen in the younger generations.
SS> They ask more questions than my generation do! --
But does your generation give them the answers they seek? :-)
___ Via Silver Xpress V3.02
S Saisanit
> SS> From: nwg!mcclb0.med.nyu.edu!saisanit (S Saisanit)
> SS> Subject: Re: Lg'S Wife
>
> SS> as to put it so strongly. We have forms, uniforms and the like
> SS> to be followed since we first went to school. We fail to
> SS> question for reasons behind those and carry them over. It is
> SS> this 'suppression' that cause the slow advance of democracy.
>
> Perhaps getting rid of uniforms would help promote Western-style
> individualism in Thailand?
>
> SS> am glad to see some changes happen in the younger generations.
> SS> They ask more questions than my generation do! --
>
> But does your generation give them the answers they seek? :-)
>
satisfaction anyway. Asking questions is much more important than
getting answers, IMO. Our thinking needs to be challenged from time
to time. It is how the humanity evolves for the better.
Ask all school principles why students have to wear uniforms. They
could come up with all bogus answers, I'm sure. The next question is
do we better off having the uniforms or not? What is to be gained and
what is to be lost, if students don't have to wear uniforms? Do
students have better learning capabilty when in uniforms? etc. That
is just merely an example. We can easily get lost with the obsession
of 'forms' and forget the 'substances' or the 'purposes' of whatever
we are doing.
More too often, we do things because our parents or generations before
did those. We fail to ask why and I think that is a shame.
--
Sittichoke.
"I've been locked inside your heart-shaped box for a week."
Kurt Cobain
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>
> Ask all school principles why students have to wear uniforms. They
> could come up with all bogus answers, I'm sure. The next question is
> do we better off having the uniforms or not? What is to be gained and
> what is to be lost, if students don't have to wear uniforms? Do
> students have better learning capabilty when in uniforms? etc. That
> is just merely an example. We can easily get lost with the obsession
> of 'forms' and forget the 'substances' or the 'purposes' of whatever
> we are doing.
>
> More too often, we do things because our parents or generations before
> did those. We fail to ask why and I think that is a shame.
Ironically I think the school absence of uniforms might lead to more
emphasis on clothes (form) rather than substance especially among
adolescents. IMO, school uniforms create a more desirable atmosphere
in schools. Lack of uniforms might lead to some students dressing more
exhuberantly, trying to look better than the next student.
Peer-pressure would aggravate the situation. This is especially true
of many adolescents.
Of course, only rich students will be able to afford "cool" outfits.
Adolescents that are poor would not be able to keep up with the
"competition." They might feel out of place if they are in the
minority. Because students from different socio-economic backgrounds
will dress differently, students in a no-uniform school will begin to
associate clothes (form) with backgrounds or substance. In other
words, they will come to judge other students on their appearances.
During adolescence clique-forming is widespread. A lack of uniform
might encourage students to group according to their appearances
because in this case appearances (clothes) indicate socio-economic
background. People generally like to be with people of similar
backgrounds. It's human nature.
Do uniforms really stifle individuality? Especially mental
individuality? Uniforms would obviously stifle individuality of the
"form." However, there should be ample alternative outlets for
individuality so that uniforms would not be an issue. I agree
though....uniforms might somehow affect our sense of individuality. Is
the degree to which it affects our individuality significant though?
Uniforms also foster a sense of community because it possibly prevents
student body polarisation (as mentioned above) that might occur in a no
uniform school. Uniforms and no uniforms have their pros and cons.
However, I believe no uniforms create more problems than they solve.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
Khun S Saisanit,
You raise a lot of valid points.
>
> Khun Kiatipong,
>
> Don't you think uniforms also create a sense of communities? The
> sense of us and them which is totally unnecessary.
You think communities or a "sense of communities" are unnecessary? To
have a community one must also have a "sense of community."
Communities imply cooperation and vice versa. For time immemorial Man
has followed the "Golden Rule" of cooperation and IMO it has played a
crucial role in Man's development.
> Fighting between
> schools will happan less or disappear if students don't wear uniforms
> that are easily identifiable.
True. Please bear in mind that fighting (you mean physical fighting
right?) between students generally involve a very small number of
students in comparison to the whole student population of the schools
involved. Something that might help would be to remove school's logos
from the uniforms or the two schools administrations involved should
intervene. I realize that this would not solve the problem. The fact
that students from rival schools fight means that their schools are not
succeeding in educating them. However I agree that given students with
aggressive mindsets towards rival schools, uniforms indicating rival
schools would encourage more fights.
>
> Don't you think social classes are invisible when they wear uniforms?
No.
> Uniform can be the cause of social disparity.
Yes. But not as much as a no uniforms scenario.
Among the riches, you
> can see subtle differences in the fabrics and the attempts to add
> styles pushing the limits of forms. Poor students not only can't do
> that, they have to wear dirty old uniforms or worse yet, some don't
> even have uniforms to wear. Have you ever heard of brothers or
> sisters taking turn to go to schools? A family could afford one
> uniform for siblings. When one wears it, the other can't go to school
> then.
Yes, everything you say is true. But my point is this: Uniforms create
less social disparity than no-uniforms. IMO, state schools should give
out uniforms to students who cannot afford them. If that is not
possible than a school with students who cannot afford uniforms should
just abolish uniforms. Only in this case would uniforms create more
problems than no uniforms.
>
> Isn't it a waste of human-energy and time that each morning, teachers
> have to check students out one by one if they wear uniforms by school
> standards? Not to mention types of hair-cut and so on.
>
Teachers don't have to be super strict. Uniform-rules don't have to be
enforced by time-consuming inspections. Most teachers would just
"notice" breaches of uniform rules. Afterall, the teachers will see the
students in class, recess, etc. Also, a, say, 80-90% compliance with
uniforms rules would be good enough for me. It is not ideal but it is
still preferable to a no-uniform scenario.
> Again, it is just merely an example.
I do not think it is reflects the larger problem you talk about below.
Uniforms alone should not be an issue. There are plenty of other ways
that individuality, especially mental individuality can express itself.
For example, students should be ecouraged to ask questions and hold
debates in class. Would uniforms have a bearing on this? Would
uniforms stifle curiousity?
>The larger problem is students
> should be taught to think for themselves not just follow the orders
> all the time. Asking questions or curiosity as of human nature should
> not get lost after schooling. We don't train these kids to be
> 'yes_you_are_correct_sir' type of people or do we? That is why
> democracy doesn't work in Thailand.
I agree with many things you say but uniforms do not fit in with your
main argument. Uniforms and no-unforms have their good and bad points.
I believe that uniforms is the better of the two choices.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
S Saisanit
> In article <1994Apr14.163719.1@mcclb0>
> sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>
>> Don't you think uniforms also create a sense of communities? The
>> sense of us and them which is totally unnecessary.
>
> You think communities or a "sense of communities" are unnecessary? To
> have a community one must also have a "sense of community."
> Communities imply cooperation and vice versa. For time immemorial Man
> has followed the "Golden Rule" of cooperation and IMO it has played a
> crucial role in Man's development.
>
often lead to ignorance of the larger and more important community.
Schools are subcultures of a country. If students realize that they
are the same, they should not fight for the name of their school or
something like that. Yes, I mean fighting in the streets. If people
of all races and nations realize that we are parts of the humanity,
will there be any more war? I don't imply abolishing smaller
communities. I just want to point out that there are something else
to think about.
> Something that might help would be to remove school's logos
> from the uniforms or the two schools administrations involved should
> intervene.
Exactly, I like that idea already. No uniform or uniform without
identity, either way is good.
>> Again, it is just merely an example.
> I do not think it is reflects the larger problem you talk about below.
> Uniforms alone should not be an issue. There are plenty of other ways
> that individuality, especially mental individuality can express itself.
> For example, students should be ecouraged to ask questions and hold
> debates in class. Would uniforms have a bearing on this? Would
> uniforms stifle curiousity?
>
I didn't say that uniform is responsible for the problem I am trying
to raise. It is just one of issues that I think should be
re-examined. How did it come to our society anyway? I am terrible
about history. My guess is it might be transferred from a military
culture. I agree that uniform has some good and I probably vote with
you to keep it in place, if I have too. It is what we are doing that
students should be free to do; debating in schools what the advantages
and disadvantages of uniforms. Liberation the thinking is what is
needed. More too often that teachers or adults shut out the free-form
of thingking from youngsters.
What's wrong with this picture? -- Students are more worried about
what will be in the exam than actually learning the subject!
--
Sittichoke.
Craig Emmott
SS> certain satisfaction anyway. Asking questions is much more
SS> important than getting answers, IMO. Our thinking needs to be
SS> challenged from time to time. It is how the humanity evolves
SS> for the better.
Thais -- at least the upcountry Thais I've spoken to -- don't seem to
be curious about things in the same way Westerners are. Some years ago
I had asked a neighbour about the origin of the Thai word for
"moon." I went on to mention that the Americans had sent men to
the moon. She then asked... "Why?" A farang probably would have asked,
"What did they find there?"
SS> Ask all school principles why students have to wear uniforms.
SS> They could come up with all bogus answers, I'm sure. The next
SS> question is do we better off having the uniforms or not? What
SS> is to be gained and what is to be lost, if students don't have
SS> to wear uniforms? Do students have better learning capabilty
SS> when in uniforms? etc. That is just merely an example. We
SS> can easily get lost with the obsession of 'forms' and forget
SS> the 'substances' or the 'purposes' of whatever we are doing.
When I was at school, we saw uniforms as an attempt to enforce
conformity on us. The boys would use a needle to pull out the threads
of their regulation neckties and give them a trendy pinstripe look,
the girls -- whose skirts had to reach at least 4 inches below the
knee -- used to roll them up at the waist to make them shorter.
SS> "I've been locked inside your heart-shaped box for a week."
SS> Kurt Cobain
Are you trying to grunge us all?
Lord C
***On the subject of the complex issue of uniforms i cant help noticing the
cadets leaving the military school in Rama IV road. They look like little
toy soldiers ,very smart, very upright and they always carry their case
in the same hand. But what is very odd is that when 4 or 5 of them are
waiting at the bus stop ,they stand in a smart line and do not have any
sort of communication between themselves. They look straight ahead as if
they have been hypnotised ,does anyone know if they are banned from
speaking in the street ,as this seems to be taking disciplin to the extreme
--
|--,----,------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | Lord Charvington of London ,resides at lo...@sparrow.demon.co.uk
\()/ "Ahh, you cant fool me, there aint no sanity clause" MARX
(..) "I can resist everything except temptation" OSCAR
\/ --------------------------------------------------------
_||_
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
> In article <2ol0g7$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu (Kiatipong Ariyapruchya) writes:
> > In article <1994Apr14.163719.1@mcclb0>
> > sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
> >
> >> Don't you think uniforms also create a sense of communities? The
> >> sense of us and them which is totally unnecessary.
> >
> > You think communities or a "sense of communities" are unnecessary? To
> > have a community one must also have a "sense of community."
> > Communities imply cooperation and vice versa. For time immemorial Man
> > has followed the "Golden Rule" of cooperation and IMO it has played a
> > crucial role in Man's development.
> >
> What I meant to say was creating small communities within a larger one
> often lead to ignorance of the larger and more important community.
> Schools are subcultures of a country. If students realize that they
> are the same, they should not fight for the name of their school or
> something like that. Yes, I mean fighting in the streets. If people
> of all races and nations realize that we are parts of the humanity,
> will there be any more war? I don't imply abolishing smaller
> communities. I just want to point out that there are something else
> to think about.
Charity begins at home. In our society families are an integral
building block of the community. How can an individual come to value
the community of humanity if they cannot value a sense of community
with people in their immediate community? You're right--individuals
in a community should learn that they are part of a larger community:
humanity. How to achieve this goal? We have to start at home and in
the classroom.
>
> > Something that might help would be to remove school's logos
> > from the uniforms or the two schools administrations involved should
> > intervene.
>
> Exactly, I like that idea already. No uniform or uniform without
> identity, either way is good.
>
> >> Again, it is just merely an example.
> > I do not think it is reflects the larger problem you talk about below.
> > Uniforms alone should not be an issue. There are plenty of other ways
> > that individuality, especially mental individuality can express itself.
> > For example, students should be ecouraged to ask questions and hold
> > debates in class. Would uniforms have a bearing on this? Would
> > uniforms stifle curiousity?
> >
> I didn't say that uniform is responsible for the problem I am trying
> to raise. It is just one of issues that I think should be
> re-examined. How did it come to our society anyway? I am terrible
> about history. My guess is it might be transferred from a military
> culture. I agree that uniform has some good and I probably vote with
> you to keep it in place, if I have too. It is what we are doing that
> students should be free to do; debating in schools what the advantages
> and disadvantages of uniforms. Liberation the thinking is what is
> needed. More too often that teachers or adults shut out the free-form
> of thingking from youngsters.
"Teacher..adults shut out the free-form of thinking from youngsters."
This is a tough issue. Eastern cultures stress obediance, conformity.
Cultures are the ancient unwritten laws of society. They promote
societal stability. This has its costs, as you said. It suppresses
free-thinkers unconstrained by culturation. Are free-thinkers
desirable? I would say responsible free-thinkers are desirable. I
would also say cultures (especially ours) generally teach respect and
responsibility - the glue that holds ( or at least held :-) )
communities together. We must find a middle path and it is no easy
task.
>
> What's wrong with this picture? -- Students are more worried about
> what will be in the exam than actually learning the subject!
How else could you motivate students to study? Especially adolescents?
Of course, I would rather students seek knowledge for knowledge's sake.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
James Finn
> >The larger problem is students
> > should be taught to think for themselves not just follow the orders
> > all the time.
>
> main argument.
Since you both agree that the goal is to help teach students how
to think for themselves in order to foster a democratic society in
Thailand, here's an idea: Why not let the students themselves vote, on a
per-school basis, whether or not to have uniforms?
--James
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
fi...@nwg.nectec.or.th (James Finn) writes:
>
> Since you both agree that the goal is to help teach students how
> to think for themselves in order to foster a democratic society in
> Thailand, here's an idea: Why not let the students themselves vote, on a
> per-school basis, whether or not to have uniforms?
>
> --James
What students are you talking about? College students? High school
students? Kindegarten students? etc.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
S Saisanit
(Craig Emmott) writes:
> Thais -- at least the upcountry Thais I've spoken to -- don't seem to
> be curious about things in the same way Westerners are. Some years ago
> I had asked a neighbour about the origin of the Thai word for
> "moon." I went on to mention that the Americans had sent men to
> the moon. She then asked... "Why?" A farang probably would have asked,
> "What did they find there?"
>
better before going to the moon. I would want to know the answer
myself. :-) I suspect the curiosity or lack of it has cost us the
good scientific quality.
> When I was at school, we saw uniforms as an attempt to enforce
> conformity on us. The boys would use a needle to pull out the threads
> of their regulation neckties and give them a trendy pinstripe look,
> the girls -- whose skirts had to reach at least 4 inches below the
> knee -- used to roll them up at the waist to make them shorter.
>
On the contrary, the girls in my school wore too long skirts; the
edge was just above the ankles. When they were given a warning,
they roll them up at the waist also. The boys, however, attemps to
make our shorts shorter. They have to be 4 inches above the knee.
That would happen when we pulled our shorts down until the waist
stuck on our hip. :-)
When conformity is enforced, everyone is searching for individuality
that was lost, IMO.
> SS> "I've been locked inside your heart-shaped box for a week."
> SS> Kurt Cobain
>
> Are you trying to grunge us all?
I am mourning the late Kurt Cobain; a hesitant poet.
--
Sittichoke. "Rock'n Roll can never die."
S Saisanit
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu (Kiatipong Ariyapruchya) writes:
>
> Charity begins at home. In our society families are an integral
> building block of the community. How can an individual come to value
> the community of humanity if they cannot value a sense of community
> with people in their immediate community? You're right--individuals
> in a community should learn that they are part of a larger community:
> humanity. How to achieve this goal? We have to start at home and in
> the classroom.
Apparently, it fails. Problems come in cycle -- schools fail to
produce independent thinkers, they become parts of cryptic society and
families, so family units can't provide role models for their
newborns. The only point that I can see a chance of "breaking in" to
this cycle is the school system. Then again, the adults (teachers)
can still be an obstacle.
[..]
>
> "Teacher..adults shut out the free-form of thinking from youngsters."
> This is a tough issue. Eastern cultures stress obediance, conformity.
> Cultures are the ancient unwritten laws of society. They promote
> societal stability. This has its costs, as you said. It suppresses
> free-thinkers unconstrained by culturation. Are free-thinkers
> desirable? I would say responsible free-thinkers are desirable. I
> would also say cultures (especially ours) generally teach respect and
> responsibility - the glue that holds ( or at least held :-) )
> communities together. We must find a middle path and it is no easy
> task.
Are you one of people who are afraid that someone like Hitler, Stalin
or Mao Seadung might pop up if you allow free thinking? People like
these can achieve what they want only when others fail to think for
themselves. The eastern way of obedience and conformity is out of
time already. Haven't we learn anything from history at all?
--
Sittichoke.
S Saisanit
Finn) writes:
>
> Since you both agree that the goal is to help teach students how
> to think for themselves in order to foster a democratic society in
> Thailand, here's an idea: Why not let the students themselves vote, on a
> per-school basis, whether or not to have uniforms?
>
the old-fashioned teachers -- who love to have the authorities -- to
accept this idea?
--
Sittichoke.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
> In article <2oqaep$7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
> Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu (Kiatipong Ariyapruchya) writes:
> >
> > Charity begins at home. In our society families are an integral
> > building block of the community. How can an individual come to value
> > the community of humanity if they cannot value a sense of community
> > with people in their immediate community? You're right--individuals
> > in a community should learn that they are part of a larger community:
> > humanity. How to achieve this goal? We have to start at home and in
> > the classroom.
>
> Apparently, it fails. Problems come in cycle -- schools fail to
> produce independent thinkers, they become parts of cryptic society and
> families, so family units can't provide role models for their
> newborns. The only point that I can see a chance of "breaking in" to
> this cycle is the school system. Then again, the adults (teachers)
> can still be an obstacle.
It failed? The process is not over yet. I'm sure we are getting
"there" steadily. History has shown us that democracy in its best form
is associated with economically developed countries. Thailand is in
transition.
> [..]
> >
> > "Teacher..adults shut out the free-form of thinking from youngsters."
> > This is a tough issue. Eastern cultures stress obediance, conformity.
> > Cultures are the ancient unwritten laws of society. They promote
> > societal stability. This has its costs, as you said. It suppresses
> > free-thinkers unconstrained by culturation. Are free-thinkers
> > desirable? I would say responsible free-thinkers are desirable. I
> > would also say cultures (especially ours) generally teach respect and
> > responsibility - the glue that holds ( or at least held :-) )
> > communities together. We must find a middle path and it is no easy
> > task.
>
> Are you one of people who are afraid that someone like Hitler, Stalin
> or Mao Seadung might pop up if you allow free thinking?
No.
> People like
> these can achieve what they want only when others fail to think for
> themselves.
I agree.
> The eastern way of obedience and conformity is out of
> time already. Haven't we learn anything from history at all?
> --
> Sittichoke.
I'm not talking about extreme obediance or conformity. We must have
some of each. What is it that holds society together and contributes
towards its well being? I don't have all the answers but in the
answers somewhere I suspect there ought to be respect and
responsibilty, especially within the family. It is speculated that
many Asian-American students in the US excel because of their family
values. Do you think families are important? Or should children
disassociate themselves from their parents because they often encourage
submissive cultural values? IMO, I think it is inevitable that each
new generation will include more and more free-thinkers as long as the
country continues to develop.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
James Finn
> fi...@nwg.nectec.or.th (James Finn) writes:
> > Since you both agree that the goal is to help teach students how
> > to think for themselves in order to foster a democratic society in
> > Thailand, here's an idea: Why not let the students themselves vote, on a
> > per-school basis, whether or not to have uniforms?
> What students are you talking about? College students? High school
> students? Kindegarten students? etc.
Yes. Yes. Maybe. Certainly at the elementary school level; what should
be the minimum grade level for voting eligibility could be open
to debate. If I remember correctly, research indicates that
humans start to develop abstract reasoning capabilities by age 7.
So the exercise would be useful for everyone from that age up,
I would think. The point is, there are arguments on both sides,
and it is not going to matter a whole lot which side wins,
so the exercise would be good for the students. Study an
issue (and this is one in which the pros and cons are fairly
easy to identify), debate, decide. Revote every year or two.
--James
James Finn
> >
> That would be excellent. Do you have any suggestion how to persuade
> the old-fashioned teachers -- who love to have the authorities -- to
> accept this idea?
No. I am not Thai and have absolutely zero experience with
the Thai elementary/high school system (I work at the university
level).
--James
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
fi...@nwg.nectec.or.th (James Finn) writes:
>
> Yes. Yes. Maybe. Certainly at the elementary school level; what should
> be the minimum grade level for voting eligibility could be open
> to debate. If I remember correctly, research indicates that
> humans start to develop abstract reasoning capabilities by age 7.
> So the exercise would be useful for everyone from that age up,
> I would think. The point is, there are arguments on both sides,
> and it is not going to matter a whole lot which side wins,
> so the exercise would be good for the students. Study an
> issue (and this is one in which the pros and cons are fairly
> easy to identify), debate, decide. Revote every year or two.
>
> --James
Interesting idea. I would go for an older age group-upper high school.
IMO, lower age groups would tend not too care. It would be a good
learning experience to let students vote on an issue that affects them
directly. As opposed to what you think I think the outcome is
important (as you must know from my posting). How to organise it?
Nation-wide? By region? Would apathy be a problem? Well... students
have to start voting somewhere and I think the uniforms issue might a
relatively harmless way to start. Overall I think it is a good idea..
But how about this scenario: a student body that is 80% upper income
and 20% lower income. The upper income students would most probably go
for the no uniforms vote because they can afford it. The remaining 20%
would be at a disadvantage in such an environment (for reasons I wrote
about in previous posts). There would be a "tyranny of the majority"
as Tocqueville commented of democracy. Is this fair? Are there any
remedies?
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Tawit Chitsomboon
S.Saisanit wrote:
>.......x
>> sisters taking turn to go to schools? A family could afford one
>> uniform for siblings. When one wears it, the other can't go to school
>> then.
>
>Yes, everything you say is true. But my point is this: Uniforms create
>less social disparity than no-uniforms. IMO, state schools should give
>out uniforms to students who cannot afford them. If that is not
>possible than a school with students who cannot afford uniforms should
>just abolish uniforms. Only in this case would uniforms create more
>problems than no uniforms.
A simple solution is to let poor people who cannot afford uniform to
wear whatever they like. This is what the PhutthiYothin school is
doing (in Chiangmai) and it work very well. Rich kids come with
clean uniform , poor kids come to school BARE FOOTED.
Don't let a couple of bad example ruin the general good of the system!
My experience as a poor boy going to school was just the opposite
from what Khunn Sitthichoke had observed (or rather read from the newspaper)
In reality, most poor kids CAN afford uniforms but they can't afford
non-school clothing so they tend to wear school uniform at home as well
as while tending the water buffaloes in the field.
The real killer though is the boy scout and girl guide uniforms.
These, the poor parents can't afford because they are much more
expensive than school uniform. They should be abolished, imo.
>>
>> Isn't it a waste of human-energy and time that each morning, teachers
>> have to check students out one by one if they wear uniforms by school
>> standards? Not to mention types of hair-cut and so on.
>>
>Teachers don't have to be super strict. Uniform-rules don't have to be
>enforced by time-consuming inspections. Most teachers would just
Enforcement should be made to prevent students to go ABOVE the limit.
There should be no enforcement if student go BELOW the limit due to
poverty.
>..............x
> I believe that uniforms is the better of the two choices.
I used to think like Khun Sitthichoke . Now I am on your side.:-)
***Man spends the first half of his life acting like a grown up
while spending the latter half acting like a kid.
--
Tawich Jitrsomboon : fst...@marge.lerc.nasa.gov /Be a good citizen!
ICOMP/NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, USA /Don't be yourself!
Jaray Chomchalao
Lo...@sparrow.demon.co.uk (Lord C) writes:
>***On the subject of the complex issue of uniforms i cant help noticing the
> cadets leaving the military school in Rama IV road. They look like little
> toy soldiers ,very smart, very upright and they always carry their case
> in the same hand. But what is very odd is that when 4 or 5 of them are
> waiting at the bus stop ,they stand in a smart line and do not have any
> sort of communication between themselves. They look straight ahead as if
> they have been hypnotised ,does anyone know if they are banned from
> speaking in the street ,as this seems to be taking disciplin to the extreme
Extreme? Naaah. There are helluva lot more going on inside the academies
that the public never gets to see. Here are a few things you might
have a chance to notice when seeing cadets outside school I present them
for your observation and amusement.
Rules for Cadets in Uniform Outside the Academy
1. When outside the academy, a cadet shall wear uniform at all
times, except w/i the radius of 100 meters from his home.
2. While travelling, a cadet shall carry a black academy case,
with the appropriate academy emblem in his LEFT hand at all times,
except when the seasonal uniform requires that he wear a short
sword at the left thigh, such as the service dress white during the rainy
season, or the tunic during winter, when he shall carry his case in his
RIGHT hand.
3. When possible, a cadet shall maintain a proper military manner,
by looking straight ahead, eyes focusing at infinity, shin level,
and straightening himself up to the fullest height at all time.
A cadet shall avoid subjecting himself to a situation where this
rule may not be properly observed.
4. While walking, a cadet shall move his hands six inches forward
of his hips, and three inches aft of this buttock, hands forming
loose fists, and swinging naturally in conjunction with the body
movement.
5. While crossing the street, a cadet shall walk properly. He shall
not run, even if the car is coming. If he determines that the
driver has seen him and the car can be stopped in ample time, he shall
continue walking without looking at the car. If he determines that
the car may hit him, then he may run.
6. If more than one underclass cadets are going in the same direction,
they shall walk in formation. If more than one underclass cadets are
waiting for a bus, they shall form a formation suitable
to the space available. The formation shall be such that the more
senior cadets are in front and to the right. Seniority is determined
by class. Seniority among the same class is determined by the uniforms,
with the order from service dress white, tunic, summer service dress white,
and others. Underclass is defined as first or second yr cadets.
7. While in formation, cadets may not talk, nor do other things than
looking ahead. Once seated, some polite conversation is allowed (only
applies to underclass).
8. Given the choice of an airbus and a non-airbus, a cadet shall
prefer the former where he may sit properly as shall be later stipulated.
If he chooses the latter, he shall board the bus at the AFT door
whenever possible, and exit therefrom.
9. A cadet shall not sit in improper places, such as uncovered
places , on the rail beside the street, on the floor,
etc. In short, he shall be seated only in places where seating
is in good taste, and in observant of the rules that follow.
10. While in a vehicle, a cadet shall be seated only when no
women, seniors and children are standing. While being seated,
and it happens that those mentioned just boarding have no seats,
a cadet shall immediately offer his seat.
11. When in an aired bus, a cadet, when seating is available in observant
of 10), may sit where he pleases, but he shall make every effort to
sit as close to the rear of the bus as possible. In a non-aired bus,
a cadet may sit only at the rearest seats of the bus.
12. When seated, a cadet shall observe the proper manner. That is,
back straight, legs together, looking ahead, case on the lap, covered
(hat on), and no sleeping.
13. If it's not possible to sit, a cadet shall hold his case in his LEFT
hand, and grab a bar to prevent his swinging with the right hand. He
is allowed to switch hands only infrequently. Also, he must make
every attempt to stand straight, even if the vehicle is making a 360
degree turn at high speed. In any case, he shall not sit his case
on the floor.
14. A cadet shall not release his case under others' control, even
when offered. He may allow another passenger to take care of his
case for him only after the person has insisted three times, and
provided that the person is a female with a good look, in which
case he must make an effort to secure her address or the like.
15. A cadet shall not travel in/on a land vehicle with less than
four wheels, nor on the back on an animal.
16. A cadet shall not loosen his uniform, nor uncover himself
during transit, until he arrives home or inside a buliding.
17. While outside the academy, a cadet shall greet all upperclassmen
from all academies, and all officers in all forces. Greeting shall
be done whenever within an earshot. He shall salute all upperclassmen
and officers when possible, by executing a swift motion of moving the
right arm which is straight from the elbow to the tip of the fingers,
straight up to tough the brim of his cover with th tip of his index
finger. After his salute is properly returned, or when he determines
that his salute will not be returned in a short period of time, he
shall bring his hand straight back down in a clean, swift motion.
A salute shall be rendered when in sight.
18. If a cadet should find himself in a situation where he must
pay homage to a civilian, he shall not uncover himself and 'wai"'.
but he shall execute a smart motion of a salut. However, should
he find himself uncovered at the time, he shall not salute.
19. A cadet shall not trust his cover into others' hands. Especially,
should his cover be found on the head of a young girl, he must
make every attempt to secure a 'fee' from her, with the fee being
strictly and specifically defined as a kiss on the cheek. Failure
to observe this rule shall carry a severe penalty.
There are many more, but I think that's enough. Rules amongs different
academies may vary slightly. Rules in the Royal Thai Naval Academy
may also vary slightly by year, depending on how inventive the upperclassmen
in power are. Anyway, next time you see a cadet, try to judge if he
is observing all this rules:=)
JC.
John Clark
>
>
20. At the first sight of a Laotian or Vietnamese soldier run like hell in
opposite direction.
21. Figure out who will run the next coup and support them.
22. Do not question authority no matter how absurd.
23. Do all of the above 1-22 and you can get medals!!
Johnny Lizard.
S Saisanit
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu (Kiatipong Ariyapruchya) writes:
> In article <1994Apr17.151149.1@mcclb0>
> sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>
>> Apparently, it fails. Problems come in cycle -- schools fail to
>> produce independent thinkers, they become parts of cryptic society and
>> families, so family units can't provide role models for their
>> newborns. The only point that I can see a chance of "breaking in" to
>> this cycle is the school system. Then again, the adults (teachers)
>> can still be an obstacle.
>
> It failed? The process is not over yet. I'm sure we are getting
> "there" steadily. History has shown us that democracy in its best form
> is associated with economically developed countries. Thailand is in
> transition.
>
[..]
>> The eastern way of obedience and conformity is out of
>> time already. Haven't we learn anything from history at all?
>
> some of each. What is it that holds society together and contributes
> towards its well being? I don't have all the answers but in the
> answers somewhere I suspect there ought to be respect and
> responsibilty, especially within the family. It is speculated that
> many Asian-American students in the US excel because of their family
> values. Do you think families are important? Or should children
> disassociate themselves from their parents because they often encourage
> submissive cultural values? IMO, I think it is inevitable that each
> new generation will include more and more free-thinkers as long as the
> country continues to develop.
>
develop into a good member of a society. Yet it is so diverse in its
values and believes. It is very hard to educate parents to do better.
That is why I concentrate on education of our youngsters instead so
they will do better as parents in the future.
Let me digress a little bit. When you find problem children, the
causes stem from parenting or adults' problems in most cases! (A
close friend of mine is a social worker.) And you can't do anything
about it except crossing your fingers and hoping that these kids will
make it through. It is hard to get adults to accept their mistakes,
they blame those on the kids.
The adult attitude of demanding obedience is destructive, IMO. The
expressions like "don't do this and that -- becuase I said so" have
been used too often. Reasoning is the best way to go for parenting.
The west is probably light years ahead of us in this regard. Genuine
respect and responsibility will come eventually. Some kids FEAR their
parents not respect.
--
Sittichoke.
S Saisanit
>
> A simple solution is to let poor people who cannot afford uniform to
> wear whatever they like.
Ahh..but that creates a new problem. These kids will become "black
sheeps". The social life in school is quite brutal -- they can laugh
at, boycott etc. to students who are different from the majority. I
would rather go for the whole school or not at all.
> Enforcement should be made to prevent students to go ABOVE the limit.
> There should be no enforcement if student go BELOW the limit due to
> poverty.
Another new problem -- unequal treatment. Students who get off the
hook by yet to be proven poverty reason may be ganged up by those who
get the punishment because they do it to challenge the system.
> ***Man spends the first half of his life acting like a grown up
> while spending the latter half acting like a kid.
Which half are you in now? :-))))
--
Sittichoke.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>
> I think family is the most important institution for a person to
> develop into a good member of a society. Yet it is so diverse in its
> values and believes.
Generally, I believe families have a positive net effect on children
>It is very hard to educate parents to do better.
> That is why I concentrate on education of our youngsters instead so
> they will do better as parents in the future.
Yes. There is definitely a trend towards more educated citizens at
Thailand develops. These educated citizens will pass their knowledge
onto their children. Education is an investment in the future.
>
> Let me digress a little bit. When you find problem children, the
> causes stem from parenting or adults' problems in most cases! (A
> close friend of mine is a social worker.) And you can't do anything
> about it except crossing your fingers and hoping that these kids will
> make it through. It is hard to get adults to accept their mistakes,
> they blame those on the kids.
This particular problem is not widespread and therefore not reflective
of general societal trends. This problem is found in every society.
>
> The adult attitude of demanding obedience is destructive, IMO.
Sometimes...
> The
> expressions like "don't do this and that -- becuase I said so" have
> been used too often.
> Reasoning is the best way to go for parenting.
> The west is probably light years ahead of us in this regard. Genuine
> respect and responsibility will come eventually. Some kids FEAR their
> parents not respect.
> --
> Sittichoke.
Reasoning is not always the best way. How can you reason with
children? Do children always listen to reason? If they don't then what
other methods are left? Also, I do not support totalitarian parenting.
However, I believe children should respect their parents. There
should be some degree of obediance too... to what degree I am not sure.
Parents have a lot of experience and are generally well-meaning
towards their children. If the children have no respect for parents
(or teachers) they would have no respect for the teachings these adults
have to offer. Ideally, I would like to see moderation: some
respect... not so much that it will blind you to other ideas.
You wrote, "the West is light-years ahead." Light years? I think
that is going to far. Parental-child relations in the US are not
without its problems. Reasoning may foster "Genuine respect and
responsibility...eventually" But by the time "Genuine respect and
responsibility" arrives it may already be too late. Children need
guidance. Reasoning, especially at early stages, will not be
effective. The reasoning approach on its own would be tantamount to
letting the child "free" to follow his thoughts, his instincts, his
whims, his friends' goadings, etc. Where would such a child end up?
However, I do believe that reasoning should be PART of parenting.
On your observation that children fear their parents: I think it is a
stage that phases out. Children normally go through a stage when they
view their parents as all-knowing incapable-of-wrong authority figures.
Of course, there are certain families where parents are extreme
authoritarians who practice physical punishments and instill fear.
They are in the minority. I would like to add that my speculations are
meant to target the majority of the population.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
alan dawson
KA>as Tocqueville commented of democracy.
Tocqueville was a neat guy, but a few years late:
"Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few."
Hamilton at the Convention on June 18th
"All the guards contrived by America have not restrained the Senatorial
branches of the Legislatures from a servile complaisance to the
democratic. . . ."
Gouverneur Morris at the Convention
* Bullets don't respect uniforms. -- Russian proverb
--
Email: alan....@wov.com
Sysop, War on Virus BBS in Bangkok. (66-2) 252-5087
Tim Stilwell
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya <Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>It failed? The process is not over yet. I'm sure we are getting
>"there" steadily. History has shown us that democracy in its best form
>is associated with economically developed countries. Thailand is in
>transition.
>
Actually, I am very much in favor of Thailand's current system of educating
the country's leaders. ie. B1-M6 in Thailand and university studies overseas.
What advantages exist with such a system?
1. Thai children achieve fluency levels in both Thai and English languages.
(try that overseas!)
2. Thai children learn respect for superiors which among other things allows
them to fit into the current Thai society as adults. No need for drastic
revolution or anarchy in peaceful Thailand.
3. Thai children focus on absorbing information not "trying to be creative".
While it is true that creativity is stilted, it is not damaged beyond
repair. Adults too can be creative or can learn to be expressive. Why
not train students to wait until they are ready for this individualism
stuff? What is really gained by allowing children to be creative? Is
time-wasted because they don't absorb new material? Is time-wasted while
they practice challenging authority unnecessarily? Is time-wasted while
they make simple mistakes and everyone suffers unnecessarily? Why not wait
until they are adults to provide them with the freedom and RESPONSIBILITIES
of adults?
4. Thai children learn to respect their schools by wearing uniforms,
taking turns cleaning up the place, and participating in mandatory
extra-curricular activities. Consider how many children would choose
friends based on looks, would lose consideration for school property,
and would select vandalism over participation given a free choice?
They are only children! Would you prefer that they be forced to think
like adults from age 5?
5. Thai children obtain a better education thanks to government control of
the subject matter. Everyone is in agreement about the important subjects
so no time is wasted listening to hare-brained ideas from "gifted"
professors. Everyone learns the same useful stuff like basic hygiene and
ethics and levels of acceptable behavior. Completely unimportant issues
like creation-vs-evolution or freedom-to-smoke-marijuana are conveniently
ignored. Remember, all that glitters is not necessarily gold.
6. Thai children are shielded from the responsibilities of adults until they
are ready to become adults. Life couldn't be better! Students study
overseas only after reaching a level of intelligence that allows them to
discriminate between good things (Michael Jackson :-) and bad things
(Khun Laurence) through the basis of clear reasoning and logic and not
because of some silly popularity contest or the latest television
commercial. Consider how many Thai students complete graduate studies
overseas where they learn about Western methods of manufacturing, research,
management or finance and then (because they are intelligent adults) return
home to Thailand to adapt existing systems where applicable. Wholesale
adoption of Western values and ideas is certainly not desirable. Could
children experimenting with democracy make the same intelligent choices
after they grow up or would they be so Westernized that they would only
rock the boat? Remember, neither Thai nor Western students assume
positions of power immediately after entering the workforce.
I am continually amazed at the educational level of most s.c.t readers of
Thai nationality. Many of the in-depth conversations that have occurred in
s.c.t demonstrate the seriousness and intelligence of the students. They
are not blindly wishing to have been born in the West. Instead, they are
making comparisons based on reasoning and with the nobel purpose of improving
life in Thailand.
I am grateful to be able to follow such discussions in s.c.t.
tim
S Saisanit
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu (Kiatipong Ariyapruchya) writes:
>>
>> I think family is the most important institution for a person to
>> develop into a good member of a society. Yet it is so diverse in its
>> values and believes.
>
> Generally, I believe families have a positive net effect on children
>> Let me digress a little bit. When you find problem children, the
>> causes stem from parenting or adults' problems in most cases! (A
>> close friend of mine is a social worker.) And you can't do anything
>> about it except crossing your fingers and hoping that these kids will
>> make it through. It is hard to get adults to accept their mistakes,
>> they blame those on the kids.
>
> This particular problem is not widespread and therefore not reflective
> of general societal trends. This problem is found in every society.
There are more than you think. That's why I said adults won't accept
their mistakes easily. Economy is also a contributing factor. A Pressure
from economic hardship can take tolls on parenting.
>> Reasoning is the best way to go for parenting.
>> The west is probably light years ahead of us in this regard. Genuine
>> respect and responsibility will come eventually. Some kids FEAR their
>> parents not respect.
>> --
>> Sittichoke.
>
> Reasoning is not always the best way. How can you reason with
> children? Do children always listen to reason? If they don't then what
> other methods are left? Also, I do not support totalitarian parenting.
> However, I believe children should respect their parents. There
> should be some degree of obediance too... to what degree I am not sure.
> Parents have a lot of experience and are generally well-meaning
> towards their children.
That can be bad too depending on how they translate well-meaning into
actions. :-)
> If the children have no respect for parents
> (or teachers) they would have no respect for the teachings these adults
> have to offer.
That is exactly my point. I don't want students to respect the
teaching. I want them to think and evaluate what they are taught. If
teachers tell them to wai" a statue every morning when they enter the
school. I would rather see they ask why and understand the reason
before doing it. I don't want them to respect mathematics or anything
they are taught either. The more you respect, the less you can be
creative.
> Ideally, I would like to see moderation: some
> respect... not so much that it will blind you to other ideas.
See..we probably agree on this already. The difference is I value
creativity much more than respect.
> You wrote, "the West is light-years ahead." Light years? I think
> that is going to far. Parental-child relations in the US are not
> without its problems. Reasoning may foster "Genuine respect and
> responsibility...eventually" But by the time "Genuine respect and
> responsibility" arrives it may already be too late. Children need
> guidance. Reasoning, especially at early stages, will not be
> effective. The reasoning approach on its own would be tantamount to
> letting the child "free" to follow his thoughts, his instincts, his
> whims, his friends' goadings, etc. Where would such a child end up?
End up wherever excellence is. :-) Children should be free to make
decisions after recieving guidance from parents. Level of reasoning
depends on age but start using it as early as possible with steady
increase when they grow up.
> However, I do believe that reasoning should be PART of parenting.
> On your observation that children fear their parents: I think it is a
> stage that phases out. Children normally go through a stage when they
> view their parents as all-knowing incapable-of-wrong authority figures.
> Of course, there are certain families where parents are extreme
> authoritarians who practice physical punishments and instill fear.
Psycological punishment as well which I think it is even more
destructive.
--
Sittichoke.
John Clark
>In article <2osoc1$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Kiatipong Ariyapruchya <Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
> Actually, I am very much in favor of Thailand's current system of educating
> the country's leaders. ie. B1-M6 in Thailand and university studies overseas.
You mean AK47 and M16.
>
> What advantages exist with such a system?
None
>
> 1. Thai children achieve fluency levels in both Thai and English languages.
> (try that overseas!)
WHAT! WHAT!
>
> 2. Thai children learn respect for superiors which among other things allows
> them to fit into the current Thai society as adults. No need for drastic
> revolution or anarchy in peaceful Thailand.
This is a flame----has to be!
>
> 3. Thai children focus on absorbing information not "trying to be creative".
> While it is true that creativity is stilted, it is not damaged beyond
> repair. Adults too can be creative or can learn to be expressive. Why
> not train students to wait until they are ready for this individualism
> stuff? What is really gained by allowing children to be creative? Is
> time-wasted because they don't absorb new material? Is time-wasted while
> they practice challenging authority unnecessarily? Is time-wasted while
> they make simple mistakes and everyone suffers unnecessarily? Why not wait
> until they are adults to provide them with the freedom and RESPONSIBILITIES
> of adults?
be creative?" --my god man -who the fuck are you?
>
> 4. Thai children learn to respect their schools by wearing uniforms,
> taking turns cleaning up the place, and participating in mandatory
> extra-curricular activities. Consider how many children would choose
> friends based on looks, would lose consideration for school property,
> and would select vandalism over participation given a free choice?
> They are only children! Would you prefer that they be forced to think
> like adults from age 5?
ahhh forget it!!
>
> 5. Thai children obtain a better education thanks to government control of
> the subject matter. Everyone is in agreement about the important subjects
> so no time is wasted listening to hare-brained ideas from "gifted"
> professors. Everyone learns the same useful stuff like basic hygiene and
> ethics and levels of acceptable behavior. Completely unimportant issues
> like creation-vs-evolution or freedom-to-smoke-marijuana are conveniently
> ignored. Remember, all that glitters is not necessarily gold.
Man you should be locked up--Immediately!!!-you are a danger to yourself!!
>
> 6. Thai children are shielded from the responsibilities of adults until they
> are ready to become adults. Life couldn't be better! Students study
> overseas only after reaching a level of intelligence that allows them to
> discriminate between good things (Michael Jackson :-) and bad things
> (Khun Laurence) through the basis of clear reasoning and logic and not
> because of some silly popularity contest or the latest television
> commercial. Consider how many Thai students complete graduate studies
> overseas where they learn about Western methods of manufacturing, research,
> management or finance and then (because they are intelligent adults) return
> home to Thailand to adapt existing systems where applicable. Wholesale
> adoption of Western values and ideas is certainly not desirable. Could
> children experimenting with democracy make the same intelligent choices
> after they grow up or would they be so Westernized that they would only
> rock the boat? Remember, neither Thai nor Western students assume
> positions of power immediately after entering the workforce.
>
> I am continually amazed at the educational level of most s.c.t readers of
> Thai nationality. Many of the in-depth conversations that have occurred in
> s.c.t demonstrate the seriousness and intelligence of the students. They
> are not blindly wishing to have been born in the West. Instead, they are
> making comparisons based on reasoning and with the nobel purpose of improving
> life in Thailand.
>
> I am grateful to be able to follow such discussions in s.c.t.
>
> tim
------havent laughed so much since the day I left Thailand.
Tim you are dim.
Johnny Lizard.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>
> >> Let me digress a little bit. When you find problem children, the
> >> causes stem from parenting or adults' problems in most cases! (A
> >> close friend of mine is a social worker.) And you can't do anything
> >> about it except crossing your fingers and hoping that these kids will
> >> make it through. It is hard to get adults to accept their mistakes,
> >> they blame those on the kids.
> >
> > This particular problem is not widespread and therefore not reflective
> > of general societal trends. This problem is found in every society.
>
> There are more than you think. That's why I said adults won't accept
> their mistakes easily. Economy is also a contributing factor. A Pressure
> from economic hardship can take tolls on parenting.
Are you saying that any parent facing economic hardship will be a poor
parent? (Apart from the financial aspect of parenting)
>
> >> Reasoning is the best way to go for parenting.
> >> The west is probably light years ahead of us in this regard. Genuine
> >> respect and responsibility will come eventually. Some kids FEAR their
> >> parents not respect.
> >> --
> >> Sittichoke.
> >
> > Reasoning is not always the best way. How can you reason with
> > children? Do children always listen to reason? If they don't then what
> > other methods are left? Also, I do not support totalitarian parenting.
> > However, I believe children should respect their parents. There
> > should be some degree of obediance too... to what degree I am not sure.
> > Parents have a lot of experience and are generally well-meaning
> > towards their children.
>
> That can be bad too depending on how they translate well-meaning into
> actions. :-)
Of course. But does this happen all the time? Indeed, does it happen
more often than it does not?
>
> > If the children have no respect for parents
> > (or teachers) they would have no respect for the teachings these adults
> > have to offer.
>
> That is exactly my point. I don't want students to respect the
> teaching. I want them to think and evaluate what they are taught. If
> teachers tell them to wai" a statue every morning when they enter the
> school.
This is an extreme case. I am not for extremes; I am for moderation.
> I would rather see they ask why and understand the reason
> before doing it. I don't want them to respect mathematics or anything
> they are taught either. The more you respect, the less you can be
> creative.
>
Lets look at your claim using reductio ad absurbum.
Imagine a classroom full of students who have no respect whatsoever for
their teachers and their teachers. Imagine the teacher lecturing about
mathematics, literature, or chemistry at the head of the class. Face
it, most teachers aren't too engaging or interesting in their teaching
styles. Kids, especially, have short attention spans for such dry
subjects. How would a class of students with no respect react to such
a teacher? Would they actively debate with this "boring" (forgive me,
teachers and ajarns out there :-) ) teacher? Would they become
intellectually involved in the teachings and come up with insights? I
suspect the students would not be listening at all, if they are in
class at all to begin with. I expect this of students below the
college level. If you teach students in the above manner I believe
there would be sharp drop in Thailand's graduation rate.
> > Ideally, I would like to see moderation: some
> > respect... not so much that it will blind you to other ideas.
>
> See..we probably agree on this already. The difference is I value
> creativity much more than respect.
>
I value both equally. Both are crucial to a desirable community IMO.
> > You wrote, "the West is light-years ahead." Light years? I think
> > that is going to far. Parental-child relations in the US are not
> > without its problems. Reasoning may foster "Genuine respect and
> > responsibility...eventually" But by the time "Genuine respect and
> > responsibility" arrives it may already be too late. Children need
> > guidance. Reasoning, especially at early stages, will not be
> > effective. The reasoning approach on its own would be tantamount to
> > letting the child "free" to follow his thoughts, his instincts, his
> > whims, his friends' goadings, etc. Where would such a child end up?
>
> End up wherever excellence is. :-) Children should be free to make
> decisions after recieving guidance from parents. Level of reasoning
> depends on age but start using it as early as possible with steady
> increase when they grow up.
>
> > However, I do believe that reasoning should be PART of parenting.
> > On your observation that children fear their parents: I think it is a
> > stage that phases out. Children normally go through a stage when they
> > view their parents as all-knowing incapable-of-wrong authority figures.
> > Of course, there are certain families where parents are extreme
> > authoritarians who practice physical punishments and instill fear.
>
> Psycological punishment as well which I think it is even more
> destructive.
I assume you think Thai culture and the values it espouses are a form
of psychological punishment. If this is so, I disagree with you. I
think this is the nub of our argument. It is an argument that can
neither be entirely won nor lost because there is no simple answer.
> --
> Sittichoke.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Tawit Chitsomboon
In article <1994Apr20.095751.1@mcclb0> sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>.............x
>That is exactly my point. I don't want students to respect the
>teaching.
But, instead, to respect your teaching of disrespect :-)
>I want them to think and evaluate what they are taught. If
>teachers tell them to wai" a statue every morning when they enter the
>school. I would rather see they ask why and understand the reason
>before doing it. I don't want them to respect mathematics or anything
>they are taught either.
Again, i think you single out a couple of bad aspects of a generally good
system inorder to refute it. You know that in reality Thai children are
not that stupid; they know what to believe and what to challenge. And you
know that in general Thai teachers are not that stupid in demanding
belief and respect from students no matter what.
>The more you respect, the less you can be
>creative.
How about respect as a form of creativity? Not many are as creative
as Thai in this matter :) (might as well be serious on this)
>
>> Ideally, I would like to see moderation: some
>> respect... not so much that it will blind you to other ideas.
>
>See..we probably agree on this already. The difference is I value
>creativity much more than respect.
So you respect creativity, eh? :)
Before one can be really creative I believe that one needs to learn
all the past creativities and mistakes of previous generation first,
else one's creativity may result into more suffering both to others
and to oneself. How could you learn a vast knowledge system if you start
questioning without listening first? Do you expect kids to question
the validity of 1+1=2 when they were first taught in kinderkarten?
I like what Tim S. said a lot: "why do you want kids
to be creative?" Duty of kids should be to learn and to respect so
that they can be PROPERLY creative as an adult. A lot of people
become IMproperly creative in exploiting people, you know.
We can even use the respect system to bring about social
advancement/peace and , alas, creativity itself.
Wasn't it our respect for HM the King that brought our nation out of
the last crisis?
Most of us think of our respect system as the invention of the upper age
to control the underage. IMO, the other way around is equally valid.
THis could be the invention of the youngs to keep the old's morality
at bay (else we won't respect you).
---------tawit (sorry my system is down )
S Saisanit
>
> I assume you think Thai culture and the values it espouses are a form
> of psychological punishment. If this is so, I disagree with you. I
> think this is the nub of our argument. It is an argument that can
> neither be entirely won nor lost because there is no simple answer.
There you have it.
I think the points I want to make have all been made. Instead of
boring SCTers to death, I am going to wrap up the topic with a little
summary. Unless you or someone convinced me that I left out anything,
I will be happy to resume.
I have some interests in brain development. Although this is one area
that there is really a black box for understanding, I am entitled to
some hypothetical extrapolation from what we already know. I believe
that children need proper stimulation for efficient brain development.
The hard part is we don't know what is proper. One can overstimulate
and causing stress in children.
What I see in eastern cultures including Thai is the imbalance of that.
Children are understimulated in the areas that affect their lives the
most. That is why I used the strong word; suppression. They are
discouraged to ask questions about religious belief and sex among
others. In other words, adults don't know how to answer these
questions so they become taboo and a cycle of suppression through
generations.
There is hope, however. A number of educated parents now manage to
communicate with their children. Primary education is still an
important target. There are a lot of room for improvement as I
pointed out in the discussion thread.
This is an attempt to summarize my point of view. One does not have
to agree with me.
--
Sittichoke.
S Saisanit
In article <1994042115...@marge.lerc.nasa.gov>,
fst...@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
>
>>.............x
>>That is exactly my point. I don't want students to respect the
>>teaching.
>
> But, instead, to respect your teaching of disrespect :-)
There is no indication whatsoever in my posting that I advocate
disrespect. I know you are joking. I just want to make it clear that
I want respect but it has to come from a lot of brain activity not
blindly. The way it goes is respect first then reason later or never
and I hate it.
>>I want them to think and evaluate what they are taught. If
>>teachers tell them to wai" a statue every morning when they enter the
>>school. I would rather see they ask why and understand the reason
>>before doing it. I don't want them to respect mathematics or anything
>>they are taught either.
>
> Again, i think you single out a couple of bad aspects of a generally good
> system inorder to refute it. You know that in reality Thai children are
> not that stupid; they know what to believe and what to challenge. And you
> know that in general Thai teachers are not that stupid in demanding
> belief and respect from students no matter what.
That is not a bad example. I went to a very unknown Matthayom school
outside Bangkok. I still think it is a very good school and there was
that incidence of wai" a statue. I did it with understanding that it
is a statue of a monk who was a founding father of that institution.
I felt grateful when doing it. Yet there are places where a cult was
created for no reason or the reason has not been told.
>>The more you respect, the less you can be
>>creative.
>
> How about respect as a form of creativity? Not many are as creative
> as Thai in this matter :) (might as well be serious on this)
On a second thought, my post sounds like I advocate disrespect. :-)
But seriously, respectful does blind creativity. Give me an
undeniable reason and I will respect but keep an open mind that I may
take it back when I learn more.
>>See..we probably agree on this already. The difference is I value
>>creativity much more than respect.
>
> So you respect creativity, eh? :)
> Before one can be really creative I believe that one needs to learn
> all the past creativities and mistakes of previous generation first,
> else one's creativity may result into more suffering both to others
> and to oneself. How could you learn a vast knowledge system if you start
> questioning without listening first? Do you expect kids to question
> the validity of 1+1=2 when they were first taught in kinderkarten?
You accused me of singling out extreme cases. You are not bad of
doing that yourself.
> I like what Tim S. said a lot: "why do you want kids
> to be creative?" Duty of kids should be to learn and to respect so
> that they can be PROPERLY creative as an adult. A lot of people
> become IMproperly creative in exploiting people, you know.
Yes, our method is so succesful and there is no Thais consciously
exploiting each others that we know of. ;-)
> We can even use the respect system to bring about social
> advancement/peace and , alas, creativity itself.
> Wasn't it our respect for HM the King that brought our nation out of
> the last crisis?
You try to draw me in to a sensitive subject huh? Fine. I think HM
is worth all the respect he has been given. Yes, that comes after a
lot of brain activity. However, that can backfire if our national
stability becomes too dependent on the institution.
> Most of us think of our respect system as the invention of the upper age
> to control the underage. IMO, the other way around is equally valid.
> THis could be the invention of the youngs to keep the old's morality
> at bay (else we won't respect you).
I didn't think of either until you brought this up. I value the
experiences gaining by age but don't abuse it to bypass reasoning with
youngsters.
--
Sittichoke.
"I do what I feel like." Bart Simpsons
Tawit Chitsomboon
>..............x
I (tawit) wrote:
>> Most of us think of our respect system as the invention of the upper age
>> to control the underage. IMO, the other way around is equally valid.
>> THis could be the invention of the youngs to keep the old's morality
>> at bay (else we won't respect you).
>
>I didn't think of either until you brought this up.
See...You need someone older and (ahem) wiser, telling you what to think :)
>I value the
>experiences gaining by age but don't abuse it to bypass reasoning with
>youngsters.
Hey, we old chaps paid our due as youngsters. Now it's time for reaping
the benefit and you tell us to shut up? :-)
Seriously,
I myself hate to be respected. With respect, come responsibility and
pressure to behave. Oh...those Thai youngsters were so creative for
inventing this respect system. I respect them a lot for this invention!
**The morality of the young is peace for the world. --Buddhadasa
------------tawit
S Saisanit
>>I think the points I want to make have all been made. Instead of
>>boring SCTers to death, I am going to wrap up the topic with a little
>>summary. Unless you or someone convinced me that I left out anything,
>>I will be happy to resume.
>
>
> Awww..., I wish you wouldn't wrap it up so soon. I've been following
> this topic since it was just LG's wife. :)
OK. Back by popular demand. :-)
> I have a silly question, may be totally unrelated. Is creativity (and
> respect) one of those left-right brain things ? If so, which one ?
> You seem to think that they are on the opposite end. I am not sure
> of the nature of creativity, but I think it is related to intuition.
> While respect (not, of fear) requires some form of reasoning.
You are going to get a silly answer too. I don't know. :-) I am
not so sure whether I believe in the left-right brain theory. Someone
on the net might have a better answer.
I agree that a true respect arises from reasoning. Here is a draw
back. The more you respect something or someone, the less you would
question its validity. Therefore, your creativity in that regard is
halted. The two things are opposite in that sense.
>>I have some interests in brain development. Although this is one area
>>that there is really a black box for understanding, I am entitled to
>>some hypothetical extrapolation from what we already know. I believe
>>that children need proper stimulation for efficient brain development.
>>The hard part is we don't know what is proper. One can overstimulate
>>and causing stress in children.
>
> I don't really understand this much yet, but since you are closing up
> shop, I'll have to make do with whatever I have.
>
> I believe, respect and creativity has to be developed (induced ?)
> equally. For example, in Science, creativity (intuition ?) is not
> enough, you also need discipline, which is, I believe, related to
> respect.
I look at it a little different. Reasoning first has to be developed
then either respect or creativity settles. If something fits logical
sense, you will accept it i.e. respect. If not, you will go on
seeking alternatives.
A few sentences I threw in about brain development have no solid prove
yet. I think the hypothesis is tempting. A child brain is undergoing
a major development while the child grows up. The hypothesis said if
some neurons (brain cells) are never stimulated then, they will not be
of use later in life. Selecting toys for children comes into mind,
a first toy in a child's life could help him/her learning about colors
and simple geometry already.
> In an undergraduate class in Math. there seem to be 4 different groups
> of students classified according to their problem solving strategy.
> The background, which is the majority, who always asleep even in an
> exam. ^^^^^^^^
Are you sure? Gee I never had many classmates fall asleep in an
exam. :-)
> Second group, just stare at the problem for a while and come
> up with totally wrong answer, without much effort but very creative.
> Third group, start working right away, in a systematic but straight
> forward unintuitive way, and come up with a not too far off an answer.
> The forth, only very small percentage who can combine intuition with
> discipline and come up with a brilliant answer (sometimes wrong but
> deserve a lot of credit.) I notice that majority of the second group
> is American and the majority of Asian in the class belongs to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> third group. The last group can be anyone, Asian or American.
> Unfortunately, these samples are not balanced, there are a lot less
> Asian than American in those classes.
You have pointed out something in the back of my mind all along here.
Asian cultures especially Thai are based on heavy discipline with
reduced brain activity to only a familiar path -- hence form over
substance.
Have we all noticed that Thais are very good at following the rules
written on a paper when we have to? As a result, an average citizen
has such a hard time get things done under the government bureaucracy.
A friend of mine is a regular importer. Her company is probably not
too exotic at the Thai customs. Yet a minor typo in a document cause
a major trouble getting the goods cleared custom. They are very
strict to the point of being heartless and brainless, IMO. At the
same time people with good last names and the bribe giver have little
trouble get anything cleared. This scenerio happens day in day out in
almost all forms of govt. agency. We know the problems of bribery and
influential people too well. Now, I want your attention to the other
problem -- form over substance. Look back from the school system
upward, there are traces of such all over.
> If I am not too far off in associating creativity with intuition, this
> observation seems to suggest that the number of balanced students is
> independent of the the way they were brought up.
Sorry I lost you here. You gave an example of the differece between
American and Asian students and here you said they are the same?
>>What I see in eastern cultures including Thai is the imbalance of that.
>>Children are understimulated in the areas that affect their lives the
>>most. That is why I used the strong word; suppression. They are
>>discouraged to ask questions about religious belief and sex among
>>others. In other words, adults don't know how to answer these
>>questions so they become taboo and a cycle of suppression through
>>generations.
>>
>
> I have a different opinion on this. I think the suppression with fear
> does not do much damage to the child's creativity. What it did is
> making the child (or even adult) afraid of self-expression (i.e.
> expressing their creativity.) They are afraid to ask question, and
> to voice their opinion (at least verbally). However, this doesn't
> seem to have much affect on self expression in a non-personal level,
> e.g. written exam.
>
>
> I also note here that, western students usually do much better in an
> oral exam, or any situation which requires thinking "on their feet"
> and live presentation.
I agree with you on the outcome. With or without fear, it is clearly
a suppression. In a way, if you are afraid to talk about a subject,
your creativity can be limited.
--
Sittichoke.
Chariya Peterson
>In article <2p4fut$f...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu (Kiatipong Ariyapruchya) writes:
>>
>I think the points I want to make have all been made. Instead of
>boring SCTers to death, I am going to wrap up the topic with a little
>summary. Unless you or someone convinced me that I left out anything,
>I will be happy to resume.
Awww..., I wish you wouldn't wrap it up so soon. I've been following
this topic since it was just LG's wife. :)
I have a silly question, may be totally unrelated. Is creativity (and
respect) one of those left-right brain things ? If so, which one ?
You seem to think that they are on the opposite end. I am not sure
of the nature of creativity, but I think it is related to intuition.
While respect (not, of fear) requires some form of reasoning.
>
>I have some interests in brain development. Although this is one area
>that there is really a black box for understanding, I am entitled to
>some hypothetical extrapolation from what we already know. I believe
>that children need proper stimulation for efficient brain development.
>The hard part is we don't know what is proper. One can overstimulate
>and causing stress in children.
>
I don't really understand this much yet, but since you are closing up
shop, I'll have to make do with whatever I have.
I believe, respect and creativity has to be developed (induced ?)
equally. For example, in Science, creativity (intuition ?) is not
enough, you also need discipline, which is, I believe, related to
respect.
In an undergraduate class in Math. there seem to be 4 different groups
of students classified according to their problem solving strategy.
The background, which is the majority, who always asleep even in an
exam. Second group, just stare at the problem for a while and come
up with totally wrong answer, without much effort but very creative.
Third group, start working right away, in a systematic but straight
forward unintuitive way, and come up with a not too far off an answer.
The forth, only very small percentage who can combine intuition with
discipline and come up with a brilliant answer (sometimes wrong but
deserve a lot of credit.) I notice that majority of the second group
is American and the majority of Asian in the class belongs to the
third group. The last group can be anyone, Asian or American.
Unfortunately, these samples are not balanced, there are a lot less
Asian than American in those classes.
If I am not too far off in associating creativity with intuition, this
observation seems to suggest that the number of balanced students is
independent of the the way they were brought up.
>What I see in eastern cultures including Thai is the imbalance of that.
>Children are understimulated in the areas that affect their lives the
>most. That is why I used the strong word; suppression. They are
>discouraged to ask questions about religious belief and sex among
>others. In other words, adults don't know how to answer these
>questions so they become taboo and a cycle of suppression through
>generations.
>
I have a different opinion on this. I think the suppression with fear
does not do much damage to the child's creativity. What it did is
making the child (or even adult) afraid of self-expression (i.e.
expressing their creativity.) They are afraid to ask question, and
to voice their opinion (at least verbally). However, this doesn't
seem to have much affect on self expression in a non-personal level,
e.g. written exam.
I also note here that, western students usually do much better in an
oral exam, or any situation which requires thinking "on their feet"
and live presentation.
>Sittichoke.
chariya
Chariya Peterson
>> You seem to think that they are on the opposite end. I am not sure
>> of the nature of creativity, but I think it is related to intuition.
>> While respect (not, of fear) requires some form of reasoning.
>
>I agree that a true respect arises from reasoning. Here is a draw
>back. The more you respect something or someone, the less you would
>question its validity. Therefore, your creativity in that regard is
>halted. The two things are opposite in that sense.
So true. But again, if you pay a whole lot of attention on being
creative, you may find it less important or have less time to
develop what you have created. This, I think, could have a severe
impact on the society as the child grows older and is in an
authoritative position. I.e. you'd become "jab' jod'". But as you
said, the real question is which should be developed first, creativity
or responsibility. (Another disguise of respect ? :).
>> I believe, respect and creativity has to be developed (induced ?)
>> equally. For example, in Science, creativity (intuition ?) is not
>> enough, you also need discipline, which is, I believe, related to
>> respect.
>
>I look at it a little different. Reasoning first has to be developed
>then either respect or creativity settles. If something fits logical
>sense, you will accept it i.e. respect. If not, you will go on
>seeking alternatives.
>
Let me see if you agree with this natural ordering.
Intuition, (pure thought, feeling, hunch, etc). This is god given ?
Reasoning. This comes with experience (learning, playing).
Creativity, (meaningful creativity = intuition + reasoning ?)
Respect. (What the hect is it ? :).
Let me tangent off a little bit here. I think, the natural development
of a child without any input from adult follows the above order.
Creativity seems to be able to develop naturally while it is not so
for respect. I think, respect is a necessity for a child to fit in and
be happy in a society. In a complete isolation, there is no need at
all for respect. However if we want the child to excel and the
society to grow then emphasize on creativity.
I would love to hear from parents in SCT, which they value more for
their child, happiness and tranquillity, or success.
Anyway, the only reason I think respect need to be emphasized equally,
if not more than creativity, is because it is a lot harder for a child
to achieve respect than creativity, all by himself.
>A few sentences I threw in about brain development have no solid prove
>yet. I think the hypothesis is tempting. A child brain is undergoing
>a major development while the child grows up. The hypothesis said if
>some neurons (brain cells) are never stimulated then, they will not be
>of use later in life. Selecting toys for children comes into mind,
>a first toy in a child's life could help him/her learning about colors
>and simple geometry already.
>
Make sense.
>> In an undergraduate class in Math. there seem to be 4 different groups
>> of students classified according to their problem solving strategy.
>> The background, which is the majority, who always asleep even in an
>> exam. ^^^^^^^^
>
>Are you sure? Gee I never had many classmates fall asleep in an
>exam. :-)
>
I meant, the long term mental hibernation, starting from the first day
of class and end right after final (when it hits them.) :)
But you are right, this is only a joke. The majority seems to be the
third group and the second group is a close runner up.
>> The forth, only very small percentage who can combine intuition with
>> discipline and come up with a brilliant answer (sometimes wrong but
>> deserve a lot of credit.) I notice that majority of the second group
>> is American and the majority of Asian in the class belongs to the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> third group. The last group can be anyone, Asian or American.
>> Unfortunately, these samples are not balanced, there are a lot less
>> Asian than American in those classes.
>
>You have pointed out something in the back of my mind all along here.
>Asian cultures especially Thai are based on heavy discipline with
>reduced brain activity to only a familiar path -- hence form over
>substance.
>
Actually, from my observation, there are several American students as
well who follow the recipe religiously. Notice that I did not mention
the number of Am. students in the third group. But among Asian, they
seem to be equally disciplined, Chinese, Japanese or Korea.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough Thai students to draw a conclusion.
>Have we all noticed that Thais are very good at following the rules
>written on a paper when we have to? As a result, an average citizen
>has such a hard time get things done under the government bureaucracy.
>
I attribute this to the unwillingness to make decision. Is this
the lack of creativity ? We seem to be afraid of making mistake which
fit with what you said about respect with fear. That is why we are so
unwilling to go out of our way to get things done. It is safer to
follow the regulation, word for word and let the higher up make
decision.
>same time people with good last names and the bribe giver have little
>trouble get anything cleared. This scenerio happens day in day out in
>almost all forms of govt. agency. We know the problems of bribery and
>influential people too well. Now, I want your attention to the other
>problem -- form over substance. Look back from the school system
>upward, there are traces of such all over.
>
There is another side of corruption that we might overlook. We thai
are *Kee" greag jai". I believe, there are several situations where
the bribe was taken not by greed but by being *grange jai*. This is
probably true for the first few incidences. After that, the bribe is
taken for granted and becomes easier and finally a habit. I guess
grange jai is a by product of respect with fear.
>> If I am not too far off in associating creativity with intuition, this
>> observation seems to suggest that the number of balanced students is
>> independent of the the way they were brought up.
>
>Sorry I lost you here. You gave an example of the difference between
>American and Asian students and here you said they are the same?
>
What I meant was, the unbalanced case seems to be heavily dependent on
their upbringing. E.g. most of creative students are American, while
most Asian are well discipline and hard worker. Again, this
observation is based on a very bias data. It is by no mean a statistic.
But the forth group, the ideal balanced case, seems to be independent
of their upbringing. Could equally be American or Asian. So may be it
is irrelevant which properties is developed more and first ? May be
the importance lies in how to keep the two in balance ?
>--
>Sittichoke.
chariya
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
> A few sentences I threw in about brain development have no solid prove
> yet. I think the hypothesis is tempting. A child brain is undergoing
> a major development while the child grows up. The hypothesis said if
> some neurons (brain cells) are never stimulated then, they will not be
> of use later in life. Selecting toys for children comes into mind,
> a first toy in a child's life could help him/her learning about colors
> and simple geometry already.
I read somewhere about an experiment involving two groups of mice. One
group were put in a closed environment with nothing whatsoever. The
other group was put in an environment full of toys and gadgets. After
a certain period of time the number of synapses (they carry nerve
impulses from neuron to neuron; Einstein had an unusually large number)
for each neuron in the mice were counted. The mice from the more
enriched environment was found to have a significantly higher number of
synapses per neuron. I am sorry that I can't remember the source.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Tim Stilwell
S Saisanit <sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>>Children are understimulated in the areas that affect their lives the
>>>most. That is why I used the strong word; suppression. They are
>>>discouraged to ask questions about religious belief and sex among
>>>others. In other words, adults don't know how to answer these
>>>questions so they become taboo and a cycle of suppression through
>>>generations.
Now I am confused. I think, Khun Sittichoke wrote the comment above, but
if I am wrong, please forgive me.
In the subject areas of religion and sex, American children are also
suppressed from asking questions. However, just two areas doesn't make a
child grow up to be a robot does it? Surely, it takes much more repression
from teachers and parents and adults in general to force children not to
talk at all? Or am I missing something?
tim
Tim Stilwell
S Saisanit <sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
I apologize for getting out of line here and citing American examples but...
>
>There is no indication whatsoever in my posting that I advocate
>disrespect. I know you are joking. I just want to make it clear that
>I want respect but it has to come from a lot of brain activity not
>blindly. The way it goes is respect first then reason later or never
>and I hate it.
At what age should students be asked to begin openly questioning and perhaps
challenging their teachers? In America, it is a fact that the least
educated students become the majority of the teachers because their grades
are so low that they are in danger of flunking out of university. Given that
the pay scale and social rank of teachers is also low, there isn't a lot of
public interest in correcting this problem. Now I know that Thai teachers do
get high social status and low pay, and I do know that obtaining a teaching
degree is often easier and cheaper than obtaining a degree in a different
subject, so I must ask, are the teachers in Thailand equipped to handle rooms
of students that will question the teacher' style, method and understanding
of the material?
Lots of information needs to be memorized first and consulted with reason/
logic second. For example, math tables or synonyms or instructions for doing
something the very first time. Since Khun Sittichoke believes that children
should be allowed to question subjects, I have to ask:
1. at what age should they begin?
Reasoning begins at a certain level in American students, so our
psychologists tell us. I am enough of a scientist to wonder if our
psyche tests which have so often been labeled discriminatory against
non-White middle or higher income Americans are somehow also
discriminatory against other cultures. ie. I would very much like
to hear the results of such tests conducted in Thai communities
rather than just assuming the Americans know what they are doing
and applying the results without thinking.
If the Japanese can complain that Thai can't even walk straight,
(and Ajarn Gwyn and myself certainly agree about this :-)
then I must ask if the current Thai teaching methods so often
labeled dictatorial by some students are really that bad? After
all, it is not quite the same as military school is it?
Basic behaviorial traits considered to be traditional Thai behavior
such as 1) Respect for the monarchy, 2) Respect for Buddhism,
3) Respect for teachers, 4) Respect for parents, 5) Proper health,
and 6) Proper diet are all areas that might produce disasterous
results if the children are allowed to question them without being
properly equipped. My friend's 5 year old son loves to ask "Why?"
His tired mother asked me to talk with him for an hour or so. I
quickly deduced that even if the proper answer were given, he did
not understand it as an end result and continued to request more
details so I began making things up until he eventually became
saturated or satisfied depending on how you want to look at it. :-)
Anyway, my point is that just because we allow them to ask and they
are unafraid to do so, doesn't mean anything useful will result
unless they are properly equipped to analyze the data given. So
again, I must ask at what age do we begin the experiment? :-0
2. how often?
The worst class I ever took was Physics because the professor always
seemed to have only 50 minutes to discuss an hour lecture and so he
steam-rolled past any areas that obviously were confusing. However
he was a great guy and did explain things clearly *after* class if
you were brave enough to visit his office. I have much respect for
him.
What happens when many students don't understand the subject matter?
If we allow them *all* to interrupt the lecture, who will benefit?
Obviously, the while class will fall behind or the smart students
will lose out needlessly. On the other hand, won't the teacher get
the idea, that the class doesn't quite get it, when most students
flunk a quiz?
What happens when students deliberately interrupt the lecture? I
have fond memories of comments from fellow students of all ages
who were too lazy to read the material requested or too lazy to do
the homework, so to avoid a scheduled test date, they would ask
"stupid" questions until the bell rang. Nowadays, there is even a
television show called "Saved by the Bell" with a blond kid who
excels at cheating. Certainly not admirable in my book!
My point is, once we open the door, where does it stop? How can
the teacher tell if the student is lazy or just an incredible
dumb-ass that really should have taken the prerequisites before
enrolling or should not have been allowed to pass the last grade?
Consider how many questions have been introduced into the Thai mind simply
because they have been able to travel overseas for study and thus been
forced to adapt to a different system. For example, removing shoes when
entering a home. In the West, we might well argue that since everyone is
wearing socks anyway, the feet will be sweaty and stink so it is better to
leave the shoes on, or your feet will get cold so it is better to leave the
shoes on. If anybody really wants to persue this subject again, please
start a new post. :-)
Anyway, by comparing two cultures, many interesting ideas have been tossed
around. Some are new and some are merely enforcements of previously
discovered flaws in our own systems. Perhaps, Western students are better
equipped in some ways because of some differences in their educational
system, but it is not without a price. Western students such as myself can
also see the opposite. The important thing however is that the best-and-the-
brightest are the ones able to make changes that will benefit everybody.
Are we or are we not such people? Then are we lucky that we have been
curious enough about our own systems that we have been able to quietly
challenge them in our minds while waiting for the opportunity to compare and
learn more?
There really isn't anything any of us can do about every instance of injustice
or trickery in our community. However, we can strengthen our educational
systems or our laws to make such behavior undesirable so that people who
insist on taking advantage of the ignorance of others will be punished.
tim
S Saisanit
Peterson) writes:
[..]
> But again, if you pay a whole lot of attention on being
> creative, you may find it less important or have less time to
> develop what you have created. This, I think, could have a severe
> impact on the society as the child grows older and is in an
> authoritative position. I.e. you'd become "jab' jod'". But as you
> said, the real question is which should be developed first, creativity
> or responsibility. (Another disguise of respect ? :).
I rather think that everyone is born with a great deal of potentials.
It doesn't take much to foster the development of creativity. Leave
the kids alone would do just fine. What parenting does usually is too
much and have a negative impact on the process. Parenting is required
more toward psycological support and being the first role models. Now
responsibility and respect would come passively when reasoning is
working at full speed.
This may be a good example. A small child is learing about a sense of
heat. Some parents may scream "don't touch it" and never give a
reason. Some even punish the child if s-he insists of trying. A
better way is -- with parent close supervision -- allowing the child
to touch a hot object like a bowl of soup a little bit. At the same
time, a reason which is now obvious to the child can be given.
> Let me see if you agree with this natural ordering.
> Intuition, (pure thought, feeling, hunch, etc). This is god given ?
> Reasoning. This comes with experience (learning, playing).
> Creativity, (meaningful creativity = intuition + reasoning ?)
> Respect. (What the hect is it ? :).
Agreed. Especially when you have respect coming naturally also.
> Anyway, the only reason I think respect need to be emphasized equally,
> if not more than creativity, is because it is a lot harder for a child
> to achieve respect than creativity, all by himself.
Emphasize reasoning then respect is not so hard to achieve.
>>Have we all noticed that Thais are very good at following the rules
>>written on a paper when we have to? As a result, an average citizen
>>has such a hard time get things done under the government bureaucracy.
>>
>
> I attribute this to the unwillingness to make decision. Is this
> the lack of creativity ? We seem to be afraid of making mistake which
> fit with what you said about respect with fear. That is why we are so
> unwilling to go out of our way to get things done. It is safer to
> follow the regulation, word for word and let the higher up make
> decision.
This is true. People are too intimidated by the system to adjust the
rules when they make better sense. For example, the case of a typo in
a document I mentioned in the previous post could be handled better.
The custom official could have fixed it on the spot and have my friend
signed and perhaps a third party also signed as a witness.
It is also funny when you think about it. The govt. officials fear
the punishment or whatever but this fear is on sale at a steep price
tag. When there is a large sum of money involved as a bribe, such
fear disappear miraculously. Is this the type of creativity we have
developed?
> What I meant was, the unbalanced case seems to be heavily dependent on
> their upbringing. E.g. most of creative students are American, while
> most Asian are well discipline and hard worker. Again, this
> observation is based on a very bias data. It is by no mean a statistic.
>
> But the forth group, the ideal balanced case, seems to be independent
> of their upbringing. Could equally be American or Asian. So may be it
> is irrelevant which properties is developed more and first ? May be
> the importance lies in how to keep the two in balance ?
Yes I think you are right on target. Although I think the west is
doing the right thing, there is also something missing.
--
Sittichoke.
"My fear is on sale today. A shame comes at no extra-charge." :)
Tawit Chitsomboon
>In article <1994Apr24.031445.1@mcclb0>
>sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (S Saisanit) writes:
>
>> a major development while the child grows up. The hypothesis said if
>> some neurons (brain cells) are never stimulated then, they will not be
>> of use later in life. Selecting toys for children comes into mind,
>............x
>for each neuron in the mice were counted. The mice from the more
>enriched environment was found to have a significantly higher number of
>synapses per neuron.
This is interesting, It will be nice indeed if we can select toys in
such a way that greed/anger/delusion part of the neurons never have
a chance to develop :-) (all will be buddhas after highschool:)
Seriously, Than" Buddhadasa taught that even babies and toddlers need
to be taught Paramatha Dhamma (The highest teaching of the Buddha as
opposed to just morality) This sounds like a deceptive teaching of
buddhadasa but he insisted that kids can be taught about the not-self
(anatta) even better than adults, right from the very begining.
Instead, we do the opposite. We bombard our kids with the concept of
self (Toys, MY toys).
--
Tawich Jitrsomboon : fst...@marge.lerc.nasa.gov
ICOMP/NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
*Involvement without attachment - Thai: Mung"man"tAA'yaa'yUd^man"*
-----------------------
S Saisanit
I wrote:
>>Children are understimulated in the areas that affect their lives the
>>most. That is why I used the strong word; suppression. They are
>>discouraged to ask questions about religious belief and sex among
>>others. In other words, adults don't know how to answer these
>>questions so they become taboo and a cycle of suppression through
>>generations.
> suppressed from asking questions. However, just two areas doesn't make a
> child grow up to be a robot does it?
No it doesn't. That's why I said "among others". I didn't say that
Thai children are growing up to be robots either. If you keep up with
my posts fast enough :), you may see that Thais can be robots by
choice! Look for them at the government agency near you. These
people are far from being stupid. Yet the intimidation by our
bureaucracy makes them look like so.
I agree with your observation regarding American children. That was a
surprise for me when I first noticed it. The Europeans are doing a
better job, IMO.
> Surely, it takes much more repression
> from teachers and parents and adults in general to force children not to
> talk at all? Or am I missing something?
The repression are more severe for eastern cultures in general. Not
that it is succesful at all. It is rather have a negative impact on
intellectual and psychological development of a person.
--
Sittichoke.
S Saisanit
> S Saisanit <sais...@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>There is no indication whatsoever in my posting that I advocate
>>disrespect. I know you are joking. I just want to make it clear that
>>I want respect but it has to come from a lot of brain activity not
>>blindly. The way it goes is respect first then reason later or never
>>and I hate it.
> At what age should students be asked to begin openly questioning and
> perhaps challenging their teachers?
Students should not be asked to begin questioning. They should ask
questions out of natural curiousity rather. The social structure
discourage them to do so.
> I must ask, are the teachers in Thailand equipped to handle rooms
> of students that will question the teacher' style, method and
> understanding of the material?
Some do and some don't. In a Thai language class I took in high
school, my teacher asked us to identify his weak character. Of
course, he already had one answer in mind but he got a lot more from
us students. Surprisingly, he managed to improve several things we
pointed out later on. We need more open-minded teachers like this.
> Anyway, my point is that just because we allow them to ask and they
> are unafraid to do so, doesn't mean anything useful will result
> unless they are properly equipped to analyze the data given. So
> again, I must ask at what age do we begin the experiment? :-0
It is not so rigid. Children asking questions is a very good thing.
As an adult, the level of your answer should then be selected to suit
their ability of understanding. If you want a two year old boy to
learn about the danger of hot object and he should not touch it, you
wouldn't bring up Energy Physics, would you?
> 2. how often?
[..]
> What happens when many students don't understand the subject matter?
> If we allow them *all* to interrupt the lecture, who will benefit?
What difference does it make? You said students can't follow the
subject anyway. But seriously, students at the level of taking
Physics would be mature enough to reason that they better shut up and
listen first then ask questions when they don't understand. Thai
students are becoming passive and letting go with not fully
understanding. When an exam comes, many would *predict* what
questions would be in the exam and memorize ways to answer them. When
the exam turns out to require more thinking, they go historical about
how unfair that is.
Totalitarian may bring a submission but reasoning will bring
responsibility and respect in a way that the former can never achieve.
--
Sittichoke.
S Saisanit
fst...@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
[..]
> to be taught Paramatha Dhamma (The highest teaching of the Buddha as
> opposed to just morality) This sounds like a deceptive teaching of
> buddhadasa but he insisted that kids can be taught about the not-self
> (anatta) even better than adults, right from the very begining.
> Instead, we do the opposite. We bombard our kids with the concept of
> self (Toys, MY toys).
I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is hard in practical though
since parents are full of greed -- me, mine. Parents themselves
bombard their kids with the idea of self. We can't easily break the
cycle again.
--
Sittichoke.
Chariya Peterson
>In article <2pe9gq$n...@lynx.unm.edu>, cha...@cybele.unm.edu (Chariya
>Peterson) writes:
>> Let me see if you agree with this natural ordering.
>> Intuition, (pure thought, feeling, hunch, etc). This is god given ?
>> Reasoning. This comes with experience (learning, playing).
>> Creativity, (meaningful creativity = intuition + reasoning ?)
>> Respect. (What the hect is it ? :).
>
>Agreed. Especially when you have respect coming naturally also.
>
>> Anyway, the only reason I think respect need to be emphasized equally,
>> if not more than creativity, is because it is a lot harder for a child
>> to achieve respect than creativity, all by himself.
>
>Emphasize reasoning then respect is not so hard to achieve.
>
So it seems we may conclude that, we only need to emphasize
*reasoning*.
Creativity, which is based on reasoning and intuition, will follows
natually. At the same time, respect will also develop naturally
without suppression. Hopefullyy, the two will be in balance.
>Sittichoke.
>"My fear is on sale today. A shame comes at no extra-charge." :)
chariya
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
ts...@Auspex.COM (Tim Stilwell) writes:
> In article <2pecfo$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
> Kiatipong Ariyapruchya <Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >I read somewhere about an experiment involving two groups of mice. One
> >group were put in a closed environment with nothing whatsoever. The
> >other group was put in an environment full of toys and gadgets. After
> >a certain period of time the number of synapses (they carry nerve
> >impulses from neuron to neuron; Einstein had an unusually large number)
> >for each neuron in the mice were counted. The mice from the more
> >enriched environment was found to have a significantly higher number of
> >synapses per neuron. I am sorry that I can't remember the source.
>
> This idea is suggesting that the more electricity inside the brain the
> better?
Electricity? Where did I mention electricity? All I did was relate an
experiment I read about.
>
> I see some problems:
>
> 1. people aren't mice. NO offense meant to some of my good friends that
> are mice! :-)
You're right. People aren't mice.
>
> 2. are we comparing baby mice or grownup mice? did the source of this
> wondrous experiment quote the ages of the mice involved?
> perhaps younger mice are not allowed to be curious. :-)
I can't recall the exact details of the reading. Sorry.
>
> 3. are more synapses meaningful for any given point in time?
Humans have more synapses per neuron than any other organisms on Earth.
Humans are also considered the most intelligent animals on Earth. Is
this a coincidence?
> doe Ajarn Tawit generate more synapses while meditating or while rambling
> about Buddhism or while ridiculing some of our posts or eating a hamburger?
Actually, I was talking to one of my profs who does brain research and
current thought is that synapses do change in their arrangement/number
in reaction to experiences/sensory input. The idea was essentially
that no matter what you do, your brain will do some "rewiring" of its
neurons and synapses. I have no idea what experiences will cause
greater degree of change. I would like to speculate though that novel
experiences that are different from previous experiences would tend to
cause greater change.
>
> 4. what happens when there is too much to look at?
> am I a genius because my desk is a mess? :-)
> what about those dope fiends from the '70s that ate drugs so that
> everything would look different? surely, their brains were overloaded
> with electricity.
>
Electricity? Again?
> 5. what is stimulus and what is background?
How do you define stimulus and background?
> perhaps the quiet mice were looking at each other?
> speaking personally, i always preferred to look at the cute girls in
> my class rather than the professor, my textbook, or the scribblings on
> the chalkboard. :-)
>
> tim
Who doesn't prefer to look at cute girls?? :-)
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Chariya Peterson
>
>I read somewhere about an experiment involving two groups of mice. One
>group were put in a closed environment with nothing whatsoever. The
>other group was put in an environment full of toys and gadgets. After
>a certain period of time the number of synapses (they carry nerve
>impulses from neuron to neuron; Einstein had an unusually large number)
>for each neuron in the mice were counted. The mice from the more
>enriched environment was found to have a significantly higher number of
>synapses per neuron. I am sorry that I can't remember the source.
This is interesting. What are these synapses ? Are they some form of
chemical substances that can be charged and discharged (electrically)?
The study seems to suggest that, the number of synapses are induced by
external stimuli. I bet an average BKK taxi driver has extremely high
synapse count. :) Beat it, Einstein :).
I am wondering if stimulus could alos be internal. For example,
Einstein, continuously thinking about some deep theories in Physics,
was stimulating himself internally. That may be one of the reason why
his synapses is higher than average.
Is it possible that this paper occured in Scientific American ? I
would love know more about it.
chariya
Chariya Peterson
>In article <2pkqfp$2...@lynx.unm.edu>, cha...@cybele.unm.edu (Chariya
>Peterson) writes:
>[..]
>>>Emphasize reasoning then respect is not so hard to achieve.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So it seems we may conclude that, we only need to emphasize
>> *reasoning*.
>I hate to tell you this. :) Reasoning alone can get one into a
>dead-lock. I would add open-mindedness also. Reasoning makes use of
>certain facts to derive an assumption. What happens when one of those
>facts is later proven wrong?
>
Well, Isn't open mindedness a by product of respect ? E.g. respect
other's opinion. If you agree, then the mental progression sequence
should be cyclic.
Devil God
| |
,--->Reasoning Intuition
| / \ /
| Respect Creativity
| |
Open mindedness
Isn't Lucifer the first person who is able to doubt God ? (And was
sent to mind the Hades because he tried to spread the seed of doubt
and reasoning among the angels.) Correct me if I am wrong.
>Sittichoke.
chariya
Tim Stilwell
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya <Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>group were put in a closed environment with nothing whatsoever. The
>other group was put in an environment full of toys and gadgets. After
>a certain period of time the number of synapses (they carry nerve
>impulses from neuron to neuron; Einstein had an unusually large number)
>for each neuron in the mice were counted. The mice from the more
>enriched environment was found to have a significantly higher number of
>synapses per neuron. I am sorry that I can't remember the source.
This idea is suggesting that the more electricity inside the brain the
better?
I see some problems:
1. people aren't mice. NO offense meant to some of my good friends that
are mice! :-)
2. are we comparing baby mice or grownup mice? did the source of this
wondrous experiment quote the ages of the mice involved?
perhaps younger mice are not allowed to be curious. :-)
3. are more synapses meaningful for any given point in time?
doe Ajarn Tawit generate more synapses while meditating or while rambling
about Buddhism or while ridiculing some of our posts or eating a hamburger?
4. what happens when there is too much to look at?
am I a genius because my desk is a mess? :-)
what about those dope fiends from the '70s that ate drugs so that
everything would look different? surely, their brains were overloaded
with electricity.
5. what is stimulus and what is background?
S Saisanit
Peterson) writes:
[..]
>>Emphasize reasoning then respect is not so hard to achieve.
>>
>
>
> So it seems we may conclude that, we only need to emphasize
> *reasoning*.
I hate to tell you this. :) Reasoning alone can get one into a
dead-lock. I would add open-mindedness also. Reasoning makes use of
certain facts to derive an assumption. What happens when one of those
facts is later proven wrong?
Scientific community is notorious for its conservativity. Not so long
ago, every biochemist believes that all enzymes are proteins. Then
there was a discovery that RNA also has enzymatic property. The
community was very resistance to this finding. The discoverers had to
produce tons of data and gave numerous seminars until it gains an
acceptance and even got a nobel prize. One quote I remember is
"...enzymes are proteins and everybody knows that..." which came from
another scientist who didn't believe it. Open-mindedness is a very
difficult thing to teach our children. Then again, parents and
teachers don't have much to begin with anyhow.
> Creativity, which is based on reasoning and intuition, will follows
> natually. At the same time, respect will also develop naturally
> without suppression. Hopefullyy, the two will be in balance.
Yup, hopefully!
--
Sittichoke.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
cha...@cybele.unm.edu (Chariya Peterson) writes:
>
> This is interesting. What are these synapses ? Are they some form of
> chemical substances that can be charged and discharged (electrically)?
Synapses (chemical in nature) carry electrical impulese between
neurons. I believe a chemical discharge in the synapse changes
polarity between the transmitting and recieving neuron allowing the
electronic impulse to travel. A computer analogy would be to compare
neurons to logic gates and synapses to the wiring that connect the
gates.
>
> The study seems to suggest that, the number of synapses are induced by
> external stimuli. I bet an average BKK taxi driver has extremely high
> synapse count. :) Beat it, Einstein :).
That's pretty underhanded of you to challenge Albert like that; he's
already six feet under.
>
> I am wondering if stimulus could alos be internal. For example,
> Einstein, continuously thinking about some deep theories in Physics,
> was stimulating himself internally. That may be one of the reason why
> his synapses is higher than average.
Definitely. It probably boils down to the processing of information
which can be initiated externally and internally.
>
> Is it possible that this paper occured in Scientific American ? I
> would love know more about it.
I really can't remember. Sorry. It's possible it was in Scientific
though.
>
> chariya
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Asia--the 1st.
: In article <2pp23c$8...@lynx.unm.edu>
: cha...@cybele.unm.edu (Chariya Peterson) writes:
: > This is interesting. What are these synapses ? Are they some form of
: > chemical substances that can be charged and discharged (electrically)?
: Synapses (chemical in nature) carry electrical impulese between
^
|----- Should be 'neurotransmitter' or 'neural transmitter'
e.g. acetylcholine.
: neurons. I believe a chemical discharge in the synapse changes
: polarity between the transmitting and recieving neuron allowing the
: electronic impulse to travel. A computer analogy would be to compare
: neurons to logic gates and synapses to the wiring that connect the
: gates.
Synapse is a certain place (or structure) in the animal nervous system
where the transmission of the impulse takes place. (You were
right that the transmission is an electrochemical process.)
The nervous system contains a vast number of "distinct" neural cells --
neurons -- so the transmission requires the synapse. The synapse is
formed by the contact of a tip of an axon (a particular kind of branch of a
neuron) of one neuron with either cell body or dendrite (the other kind of
branch) of another neuron.
One axon may have several synapses with each of several other neurons;
that's why they could count and make the conclusion.
:-)
********* LIGHT WITH THE SAME BRIGHTNESS AS WISDOM IS NONE. ********
Sorrayut Ratanapojnard (ASIA, the 1st)
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University
***************************************************************************
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
as...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Asia--the 1st.) writes:
>
> The nervous system contains a vast number of "distinct" neural cells --
> neurons -- so the transmission requires the synapse.
Are you saying that if there wasn't a "vast number" of neurons there
wouldn't be a need for synapses? How would you define the quantity
"vast?" Would certain organisms with a low number of neurons lack
synapses? If so, how would impulses be carried from neuron to neuron
in this case?
Thanks. :)
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Asia--the 1st.
: In article <1994Apr30.0...@news.yale.edu>
: as...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Asia--the 1st.) writes:
: > The nervous system contains a vast number of "distinct" neural cells --
: > neurons -- so the transmission requires the synapse.
: Are you saying that if there wasn't a "vast number" of neurons there
: wouldn't be a need for synapses? How would you define the quantity
: "vast?" Would certain organisms with a low number of neurons lack
: synapses? If so, how would impulses be carried from neuron to neuron
: in this case?
I said - a vast number of "distinct" neural cells
NOT - a "vast number" of distinct neural cells.
More Qs are welcome.
*************** Sabbadaanang dhammadaanang jinaati ***************
************** THE GIFT OF DHAMMA EXCELS ALL OTHERS **************
Chariya Peterson
>
>More Qs are welcome.
>
All right !
Could you elaborate on this
>
> Synapse is a certain place (or structure) in the animal nervous system
> where the transmission of the impulse takes place. (You were
> right that the transmission is an electrochemical process.)
please.
Thanks.
chariya
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
>
> I said - a vast number of "distinct" neural cells
> NOT - a "vast number" of distinct neural cells.
Hmmm. I see. So the adjective vast is not necessary? Would your train
of thought/logic in the post remain the same if you drop the word
"vast?" Can you expand more on the term "distinct neural cells?"
What are nondistinct neural cells if they exist?
Thanks.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
as...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Asia--the 1st.) writes:
>
> : > The nervous system contains a vast number of "distinct" neural cells --
> : > neurons -- so the transmission requires the synapse
Another question similar to my old question: would a low number of
"distinct" neural cells not require synapses? If so why? Again, how
would you define "vast?"
Thanks.
Kiatipong Ariyapruchya
Kiatipong.A...@dartmouth.edu
S Saisanit
Peterson) writes:
>>I hate to tell you this. :) Reasoning alone can get one into a
>>dead-lock. I would add open-mindedness also. Reasoning makes use of
>>certain facts to derive an assumption. What happens when one of those
>>facts is later proven wrong?
>>
>
> Well, Isn't open mindedness a by product of respect ? E.g. respect
> other's opinion.
It depends on how you look at it or what angle you are looking at. I
can also say that a person respects god or the believe that god exists
so much so that s-he becomes closed mind for the possibility that
there is really no god.
> If you agree, then the mental progression sequence
> should be cyclic.
>
>
> Devil God
> | |
> ,--->Reasoning Intuition
> | / \ /
> | Respect Creativity
> | |
> Open mindedness
So you think reasoning comes from devil! :-D I beg to differ.
How about this mental cycle:
Creativity<-->\
| \
Acquired \
Nature --> Intuition --> Reasoning <-- Open-mindedness
(Devil/God) | /
| /
Respect<--->/
> Isn't Lucifer the first person who is able to doubt God ? (And was
> sent to mind the Hades because he tried to spread the seed of doubt
> and reasoning among the angels.) Correct me if I am wrong.
I have no idea.
--
Sittichoke. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power,
the world will know peace." Author unknown.
Chariya Peterson
Come to think of it, who was the first scientist in the history if not
Eve, the first woman God created. She was the first person who
performed an experiment and tested it on Adam. :) :). Wonder if
this means Adam was the first guinea pig in history ?
Please don't take this too seriously folks. I am just kidding. No
disrespect intended. ZAP !!! (The wrath of God.)
>--
>Sittichoke. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power,
> the world will know peace." Author unknown.
chariya
L Godfrey
>
> Sawasdee Khrup,
>
> I am studying Thai and I need some help to learn more Thai pronouns.
>
> I know the following so far:
>
pronouns deleted
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE correct me anywhere that I am wrong.
>
Tim, do you not talk to Lukmee, your Thai wife? Does she not have a
good command of Thai pronouns? Or are you posting this in another
vain attempt to ingratiate yourself with the Thai readers of sct?
laurence
> Khawp Khun Khrup,
>
> tim