Comment

Greenwald Hypes 'Spectacular Multicolored Fireworks' for a Finale, Will Reveal Names of NSA 'Victims'

659
otoc5/27/2014 2:44:15 pm PDT

re: #658 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You argued that rote lessons increase the ability to concentrate for long periods of time. This is an unsupported and very dubious assertion.

I believe I stated rote lessons were things we don’t like, but need in certain cases and and the discipline it took allowed for longer periods of concentration. Your rebuttal didn’t disprove that. It argued a different topic entirely. That rote teaching was not the best method alone when compared to others.

Akward phrasing: It was designed to teach taking into account the short attention spans of the ages it was addressing.

Really? This is different than what I wrote?

Copied the concept that you ought to teach age-appropriately?

Come on now, unless you are trying to prove how short our attention spans have become, dissecting sentences out of complete paragraphs in order to simply dismiss is not going to get this discussion anywhere. Many venues copied the short attention model.

This is not true.

That Sesame Street wasn’t originally modeled after observing kids watching television test patterns? It is true. Linked in one of my first responses.

Those statistics aren’t talking about attention spans, it’s talking about internet usage.

And there’s no correlation to be derived from how much time is spent reading pages? The authors called it attention span, So you dismiss that too. Fine. Offer something.

You’re just begging the question here; this is just raw assertion. This is what you should be trying to prove. It’s a little odd that you think that people don’t watch movies these days, too.

Why prove it to you? More importantly, from where do you get “It’s a little odd that you think that people don’t watch movies these days, too”? Certainly not from anything I wrote.

What’s your basis for claiming that reading newspaper articles of old required more thought and attention than reading stuff online does these days? It’s just text. Do you have the data for how much time people spent on newspaper articles back in the day?

You haven’t done anything to substantiate your claims.

Raw assertions? Substantiate my claims? Aside from the fact it is easy for you to throw barbs without discounting anything I’ve said apparently, the real question begs to be asked.

Why do you ignore my honesty regarding the fact that my opinion was not quantified? There’s a difference between qualified and quantified when it comes to theory.

I give you stats on people reading web pages and how their attention span has dropped in recent years, and you dismiss that and ask for stats about newspapers. You ignore pertinent questions directed towards you.

If you have have the need to pull sentences out of order from my paragraphs in order to dismiss, while ignoring other sections, have your fun, for that isn’t a discussion to me, nor is this a rebuttal as in a debate. Nor have you done anything beyond what I have done.

In essence, you offer a qualified theory without quantifying. Nothing more or less than I have done with the difference being how we address each other.

I respect your difference of opinion, have a nice day.