Mayer Spivack writes about different models of learning that are unfairly referred to as "good" and "bad."#

Human brains and minds appear to be inherently capable of at least two quite different kinds of processes and reasoning, The first kind, the one we have come to regard as normal, is predominantly linear and logical. The second process is more non-linear. It is often labeled "sloppy," disorganized, and is considered by many as slow to learn. In school it does appear to be inefficient when compared to the linear. It is called learning disabled, and specifically often diagnosed as dyslexia, dyscalculia, and attention deficit disorder.

While these non-linear processes, may be responsible for some of the disadvantages within the 'learning disabled' brain, they may also underlie certain creative advantages in those same brains and minds. Ideally all brains would be able to utilize both types of processes as required, employing a balancing act that keeps the mind on track. But brains differ—some are weighted toward one process, some to the other. In extreme circumstances, a brain may be uni-modal. Most healthy minds are to some degree bi-modal, but are prioritized for one or the other modality. We may advance education by recognizing that if we provide support in both modalities, we bring the potentials of both groups, and both modalities in each person to a higher level, with subsequent benefits to the whole classroom, to each individual student and to society.

There are different ways of doing everything and to pretend that one way works or should work for everyone is a nice way to suppress the diversity and creativity that a minority can create. Secondly, how can anything that a person naturally develops with any drugs or mutating events be consider abnormal?

People with these learning modes are not learning-disabled on their own. They are learning-disabled by the systems that prevent their success...

Notice that I use the term learning-disabled as a verb here to indicate that society has, in effect, disabled or derailed an otherwise perfectly functional, but different kind of learning ability. Children who have become conflicted about how to think will have been stunted in the only two developmental paths available. For them, neither pathway will develop optimally because the child must overcome the stress and anxiety made necessary by this exogenously induced mental conflict. These children may develop slowly and with difficulty, ashamed and struggling against the tide of the culture, forever trying to conceal their disabilities, and blaming themselves for their problems. They will remain unaware of the possible high abilities that might have been, or might still await them (given proper therapeutic, educational, and prosthetic assistance), were they able to freely employ syncretic-associative pathways.

The key is to recognize what is good and bad about all the various ways of doing something and allow the opportunity to experiment with different combinations. A balance is better than a tilt in one way or the other...

When children are not caused to be learning dis-abled by adverse conditions in their early environment, or if non-linear 'native learning styles have not been distorted into disabilities, we may look for a balance of linear and non-linear learning and thinking styles in the same individuals.

Dyslexia, dyscalculia, and attention deficit disorder are syndromes that are relatively recent subjects of interest for research, therapy, medicine, pharmacology and education, and for the popular press. Only a few decades ago they were mostly obscure and undiagnosed. Now we must ask: Is medicalization of these human learning styles distorting our understanding of our children? Does this same medicalization skew the results of the very research, diagnosis and treatment intended to relieve these phenomena? I suggest that some (certainly not all) cases of these syndromes are not only made worse, but actually generated by the way we educate children.

The last point, that what matters is how we educate our children and how we encourage them is something of great difficulty. Because of the government's influence on our ability to raise our children the way they want to be raised, it is not enough to realize the difference on your own and then attempt to put into practice. The government can still force a particular kind of evaluation and then not eliminate the chances for other kinds of learning or paths in life.

I'm a very large supporter of privatization of schools to both increase competition for the benefit of students and to back up some of the carte blanche decisions that are made by government committees against the students' best interests.

A friend of mine was talking about the poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley, so I decided to read about it and post my thoughts.#

The poem is fairly short so I'll just past the whole thing...

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

To me this can have two very different interpretations, both based on my current Divine Comedy and Libertarian kick. The first as an anthem for the self determination and free will of every person. And the second, the selfish withdrawal from life and choice of a sinner in Hell.

From the words "unconquerable soul" to the "master of my fate" and "captain of my soul" shouts the message that we are in control of our own lives and by extension our happiness and harmoniousness with the world. My life is owned by me and because of that no one can really hurt me or make me feel bad because they do not control my. My head may be bloody but I hold it high and remember that this pain and embarrassment is only temporary - because I know I have been righteous and thus will be honoured in the future. The fierce pride and solidarity of the single man screams with the words, "I have not winced nor cried aloud." You may be hurt occasionally but if you would rather not give your enemies the satisfaction of your torment, it is yours to control and revoke whenever you will it. But does it cross the barrier between selfish Pride and honourable Free Will and Self-Control?

I find it unlikely that it would intended to be a message from the self-concerned sinner simply because I know very nothing about the author or the collection of poems it appeared. But, I can interpret it that way if I choose. ;)

One of the fundamental theories of Hell to me is that it is a soul's own decision where it shall lie. And that decision is often influenced by the selfishness and pride that comes along with being given a free choice, it seems very common for people to think that because they are able to make their own decision that means the decision of anyone else is immediately out of the question. In this context, to someone of this mindset, it would be more important to be self-satisfied in Hell then give up your freedom in Heaven (which is not actually the case, but we're talking about what a given person fears, not what actually occurs.) The soul is in Hell, rather than Purgatory, because it can never repent and it believes that "it matters not [...] how charged the punishments [...] I am the master of my fate." It would be a sign of humility to deny this pride and admit that one was not right and deserving of the punishment. It is at the point of confession that the punishment becomes desirable because it represents repair not reciprocity of pain.

On the basis of the words I think there is a bit of acknowledgment of this theory... the first stanza refers to "the Pit" and the soul. The second stanza to the symbol of pride - the head held high. The third stanza mentions the Horror and the eternity of Hell with the "Finds, and shall find." And finally we have the gate of Hell, the scroll being symbolic of the ancientness of the Revelation, and then pride once again.

As a side note, CNN.com reported that this poem was Timothy McVeigh's final written statement before his execution. I think it is obvious why he would choose it, but I wonder which definition he is siding with? Is he saying that he was righteous and this execution is unjust? Is he saying that while he may have wronged, God is his only judge? Or is it a self-conscious prideful last stand against the rest of man?

I'm not sure. And I must mention my opposition to the death penalty that President Bush sums up nice for me,

President Bush: "The matter is concluded ... for the survivors of the crime and for the families of the dead, the pain goes on."

State sponsored murder does make pain go away or create justice as Bush admits. Keep this in mind with the upcoming trial for Saddam Hussein.

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind." - Gandhi.

I've just read Almost Famous by Ed Cone, an article that was in Wired in 2001 about Dave Winer.#

It's very interesting reading about a person you see almost every week and are not completely familiar with the history of. And this seems to be a very objective look at Dave.

One of my favourite things about Dave is how long he's seen the Web as a place for real people and a tool for real change. It's not just hype for him...

Winer's distinctive voice combines knowledge and neuroses; he writes out of a compulsion to be heard, to outline the world in a way that makes sense to him, and in so doing he has re-created himself as a narrowcast icon for a tiny but influential worldwide audience. The way he sees it, the medium has allowed him to graft something meaningful onto the material success that left him unfulfilled. "People should have their own Web sites," he says, sitting amid junk food wrappers, software manuals, and wires that clutter his work space. "To me, the Web is not about getting rich. It's about users, designers, stories, and pictures. It's a writing environment."

Even in 2001 before (as far as I can tell) the focus on blogs ability to effect and influence politics, you hear the echoes of the future of modern society in his words about them...

Instead, he devoted himself to Scripting News and DaveNet, and to advancing the cause of the blog. Anybody can start one by going to UserLand's EditThisPage site (www.editthispage.com) or by using free software from competitor Pyra's Blogger (www.blogger.com) to publish directly onto the Web. Winer says there are now about 15,000 weblogs on UserLand's servers; there are more than 70,000 on Blogger and thousands more scattered across the Web. Internet publishing, Winer contends, can be more powerful than print journalism, given its immediacy and lack of corporate or governmental filters. "I hope in the next war there are people with weblogs to let the world know what's really happening. It should be like a militia, like the Second Amendment. You can't beat the US government with handguns, but you can with information."

Fact-check their asses and don't let a story die if you're not ready for it to die. Once the media monarchy is dethroned, no longer can the State dictate what we can and cannot see. That's the power of free and open writing on the Internet, but it won't stay alive if we don't protect it. Protecting it is what getting people like Dean and the like to have an actual policy toward the medium that made them possible.

The most important part about technology is not at all the technology itself, it is not the code or the architectures we 'elegantly' design. Instead, what will be remembered in the future is the social shifts and changes that it made possible.

Winer's fluency in software built his career and his fortune, and even earned him a paragraph in the history of the personal-computing era. But intent as he is on making UserLand fly, he is clearly most invested in the much more commonly understood code of words, ideas, and emotions. "I'm a software designer - that's what I do. But as a writer, I want to leave a legacy."

Contrast this attitude with the one reveal by this comment,

Less charitable is Patrick Giagnocavo, part of the Zaphod collective. "The guy's ego is so large and his ego-dystonic state seems so obvious," he says. "Here's a closed software developer who thinks he's a journalist. Here's a guy who believes he has some special insights into the world of Internet development. Here's a guy who runs a site called Scripting News yet rarely talks about scripting. It's self-promotion at its finest. The guy who likes to name-drop whenever he can, because he thinks he's a lot more important than he is."

The message here is that you can only be a software developer, or a journalist, not both at the same time. There these experts and those experts and if we let either of them take even a little bit more power than we lose, so just shut up! More negatively still is the suggestion that seems to say that there are either no insights in the Internet or they have nothing to do with real people and real events. Then we get a quick reminder that being human is not allowed in the technology world and that every person should cut themselves down to honour the software and the company.

I think that a people-centric ideology that makes computing a tool in great social movements is much more important than the latest XML and Dave will be in my history book as one of the people who helped me realize that.