The Becker Blog

We are making a mess of our planet. Whether you are a “believer” in the so-called ’settled science’ of Climate Change or one of those heretics that the Movement derisively refers to as a ‘denialist’, most people would agree, however grudgingly, that we need to change how we use the world if we want to survive as a species. (Note: The world itself will survive. The question is whether or not we will, and what species are we going to take with us to extinction.)

Hexxus

Among the Believers, there is often an assumption that this is a binary issue: one either subscribes to the preachings of the moneyed Climate Scientists (which apparently includes agreeing not to question the “science”), or one is under the influence of Big Oil  (lead, no doubt by Hexxus, made famous in Ferngully).

Some of us do not wish to be associated with either group, thank you very much.

Read the rest of this entry »

We make them every year – at least, many of us do. The whole notion has been so maligned that some of us have taken to keeping them private.

What’s wrong with making New Year’s resolutions? It’s as good a time as any, and a date that most of us can easily remember.

It’s a time to think back, take stock, and strive to do better. That’s what they’re about, aren’t they? If I really gave it some thought, I could come up with a very long list, but I think a shorter list is easier to focus on.

In that spirit, here are mine (NOT in order of importance – that’s a whole different can of worms):

1. Lose 15 lb.
2. Have more fun.
3. Laugh more.
4. Forgive faster.
5. Judge less.
6. Write more blog entries. (Actually, that could be write more just generally.)
7. Finish writing the 5 books I’m working on.
8. Pay more attention to the people who matter to me.
9. Get rid of some of the clutter.
10. Find meaningful work that also pays well.

Stay tuned…

I have often suspected that many Americans see their Constitution as a ’sacred’ document, written by ‘prophets’.

I have now seen it admitted on a semi-public social site – this person said they had always believed the founding fathers to be divinely inspired. To be fair, this person re-defined “divinely inspired” to simply mean “idealistic”, but there is no denying that many Americans have an idolized (and pathological) attachment to their Constitution, Founding Fathers, and The Office of The President (and with it, the White House).

What about separation of church and state? Don’t you believe in that too? That seems to be a concept either lost or forgotten for at least some (a very vocal some, it seems). Those of us who are not American see a different perspective: I daresay all the other free countries have no such reverence for their governments. A healthy skepticism is a good thing.

Newsflash: the US Constitution is NOT sacred. The founding fathers were HUMAN.

Granted, collectively, they were pretty bright, but the constitution would never have seen the light of day if it had been created in any kind of democratic way. It was written by a group of like-minded men. For a country of 13 states.

The world was a different place then.

Read the rest of this entry »

That explains a lot. But, how much of it is useful (i.e. productive) and how much is mindless chasing of lights? And what does this say about people who seem to have little or no interest in seeking? AND how do we use this to help motivate people when we are teaching?

Interesting article.

Seeking

How the brain hard-wires us to love Google, Twitter, and texting. And why that’s dangerous.

By Emily YoffePosted Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009, at 5:40 PM ET

The Internet is a Schrödinger device.

On the interweb, after a while, things are simultaneously there and gone. They might be there, or they might not, depending on some earlier random event.

On Kindle, when we look in the box, we see the book either there or gone, not a mixture of there and gone (just like the cat).

For webpages, they too are either there or gone – sometimes they even stay there long after they’re gone.

There really is no way to predict which it will be until we look.

SHEESH!

I get a lot of papers to review in Game Studies; Serious Games; Educational Games., etc.

I used to learn a lot from reading these papers.

Not anymore.

Not only is much of what I read “old news” (i.e. it’s been done or discussed and mostly published before), but FAR too many of the papers I read now don’t even cite the other works. What’s going on?

I am finding more and more submissions (journals, conferences, etc.) from authors who have not done a thorough lit review. Many papers I’ve read appear to come from authors who are relatively new to the field, did a quicky lit. search (1st 2 screens in google scholar, or for many of the Education papers I see, it looks as though they simply went to 2 or 3 education websites (AERA, AACE, AECT) and searched a subset of the journals there. This leaves people with a fairly restricted view of what’s been done and what is known.

What’s the problem? Do people not know how to perform a lit. review anymore? Do they not care? Are they naive enough to believe they’re the first ones who thought of this?

Read the rest of this entry »

I like this explanation.

Watch your relations without people carefully, he reserved.

Do Animals Play Games?

I guess it is always possible to discuss definitions, but if one is willing to accept a common-sense definition of play, then animals absolutely play.

Kittens (and almost all adult cats) often ‘play’ when alone, which sort of eliminates the notion of led training. Watching animals is one of my favorite pastimes, and there is no doubt in my mind that they are sometimes playing. There are characteristic postures that differentiate play from other behaviours in any animal I have observed. A watchful eye can also detect when play turns into something else, which it occasionally does.

Cats, dogs, and most predator species play (I don’t think anyone can convince me that otters don’t play). Some prey animals play also, although to a lesser extent, it seems. Horses, donkeys and goats play all throughout their lives; sheep and cows, not so much. I’m not sure I would call what baby ducks and geese do ‘play’, and I don’t think adult ducks play at all (I wouldn’t call enjoying a great bath ‘play’) – on the other hand I’d have trouble calling some of what parrots do anything *but* play.

Some gorillas and elephants like to paint. There’s even one gorilla (http://www.solcomhouse.com/Michael.htm) who named his paintings.

I’ve been living and working with animals all my life, and have learned that what makes me happy does not necessarily make them happy – nor do my needs or feelings necessarily translate to theirs. My donkey and horse react and behave quite differently – and they require different approaches in handling and training. That’s even true with different breeds of dog. I don’t think that’s anthropomorphising.

Knowing that there are distinct differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’ doesn’t necessarily preclude some remarkable similarities.

The view of cats (and other animals) teaching through simulation touches on a number of things here – from what level of fidelity is necessary (and how it might need to change as experience/learning does) – to ‘constrained reality’ – to how deeply some of this may be rooted in what appear to be natural behaviours.

Cats seem to like teaching – Read the rest of this entry »