Posted on 10/23/2001 1:54:11 PM PDT by HopieAnn
Sorry, but I have to take issue with this so-called 'conservative' viewpoint on what counts as 'self-sufficiency.' On the contrary, asking for help is an absolutely necessary job skill if a person is to be productive in a modern technological society where the amount of knowledge far transcends any one person's ability to comprehend it unaided.
As an engineering student in the 1970s, I found that my independent streak often backfired, because my teachers often failed to explain to us how to log onto the school computer system and access our accounts, and so I ended up wasting hours at the Computer Center trying to figure out what 'I' did wrong. In the end, I'd ask a fellow student, and he would say, "Oh, he forgot to mention in class that we need to -- " and then it would take ten seconds to correct the problem.
The problem, of course, was unique to the computer system. There was no way that a person could figure it out on his own, and even if I had, there was no way that I could parlay knowledge of a temporary system account password into valuable future knowledge.
In the corporate world, I've found that the hardest thing to do is ask someone else for help -- and nothing is so useful. A co-worker can explain in five minutes what two hours of reading the manuals won't.
Personally, though, I think the kid is better off going to a library and asking a librarian. The librarian will actually give him information -- rather than imperiously lecture him on how he must, at age 10, somehow learn the Internet without anyone helping him.
Asking for help when you can't help yourself is "compassionate conservatism." But the "conservative" part resides in the clause "when you can't help yourself." When you CAN do it yourself, you should.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Words to live by.
You know I'd love to, but I'm too busy turning my nine year old daughter into a fairy.
(The cute kind; Female, has wings, sprinkles dust and says trick or treat.)
BS. We aren't talking about Plato here. Washington's speeches and writings while thoughtful, are not too complex for an intelligent 10 year old. Besides, my point was that the general concepts and developments you speak of may be WRONG since some of it was written by someone with a political agenda. Have the kid read Washington's inaugural and farewell addresses, then get copies of letters he wrote. If nothing else, summarize that. Any thoughtful teacher would like to see that versus a regurgitation (sp?) of facts.
Case in point: when I was in 8th grade (13 yrs.) I was assigned a report on Jupiter (the planet, btw, not the god). In my "research" in the school library, one source I went to was one of the encyclopedias. During one class period that the teacher had allowed us to go to the library and do "research," she walked by me while I was taking notes out of that particular volume. She then spoke up to the whole class and announced that she didn't want us simply "copying the encyclopedia" for our report. First of all, I wasn't copying the encycllopedia, but second, and more importantly, where did she expect me to get my information since the assignment begged for "copying" as she put it. Today, the internet makes that report a snap; simply cut and paste a few facts, format it, type your name, and you are done. That's not education. But the Washington assignment would be perfect to introduce the kid to original research.
The concept of original research is simple: go to the original text. A 10 year old, in a report about Washington can easily go to the texts and at worst summarize them. A proper report would be some sort of summary of the concepts you speak of. I'm simply saying (in a drawn-out way) that instead of summarizing what is written about the text, summarize the text. A 10 year old today who can surf the internet can summarize Washington's writings.
Your son would do well to learn about this man, our first president.
Source: AFRT (Armed Forces Radio and Television. You don't get comercials on TV piped in to Okinawa so they throw in American trivia)
Historians bicker about various interpretations of the past, so doing original research is no guarantee even in the study of history that your intrepretation will be any closer to the reality -- you always have to look at history through someone elses eyes -- or if you lived it, you have your own biases.
So the benefits of original research are slim -- except if that is your actual career field, and then the original research is resulting in abstract concepts that others can use in the future -- so they don't need to expend the resources twice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.