Don Rogers

Someone is shy

Don hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
Kristi, you are right where you need to be. A Dear Lady suffering with ADD inattentive is the single most amazing interior designer alive (the opinion of many in the know and my opinion). Try to talk math or organization, you lose her in 1.5 seconds. I worked with her for years and found her keys inside the frig, freezer, oven, vases, shoes, silverware drawer, grocery sacks... She's a total blast to work with, never knowing what will happen in the next 5 seconds. Her finished rooms are timeless and would have been breath-taking 2000 years ago and would still 2000 years from now. Would drugs have helped her focus on math or organization? Most assuredly. But not nearly as much as boot-camp. 40+ years of martial arts instruction and involvement have amply proven a direct correlation between serious instructor discipline and student focus, regardless of how ADD/ADHD they were before joining our group. (ADD/ADHD does not survive a drill instructor.) In this Dear Lady's case, it would have been a crime to hamper her creative juices... like forcing (whoever wrote under the name) Shakespeare to stop talking gibberish, making Albert Einstein cease asking so damn many questions or punishing Van Gogh for painting outside the lines. PROBLEM: Pharmaceutical drugs are deadly poisons. When a substance is delivered for patent, it must first pass the LD50 test (Lethal Dosage 50%); how much is needed to be effective; how much would be lethal; how much is needed to kill half the population. If the substance isn't strong enough to kill half the population, it isn't granted a pharmaceutical patent. Rockefeller, presiding over the charter meeting of the AMA, established the LD50 requirement. (None of them take pharmaceutical drugs. Their diets are strictly organic, and their personal doctors are strictly holistic.) In this universe, with the laws of physics and physiology that govern, you cannot take a deadly poison without it adversely affecting your body. IT WILL BREAK YOU DOWN.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
Erin, I do wonder what your early years at home were like (parents' attitudes toward various stimuli and their percentage of involvements in your young life), but you certainly may not want to share such childhood information and this isn't a proper forum. I do wish you well.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
Jasmine, that drawing animation is a relatively new approach to getting ideas across. While it is growing in popularity, your observations certainly show that one size does not fit all, and I firmly believe educators should remain sensitive to that fact while tailoring presentations to the individual. Since I personally enjoy the animation quite thoroughly (it may be a guy-thing), it did not occur to me that it would not be well received elsewhere. Thank you for your post. From the sound track, I got the impression that the original was recorded on stage, in front of an audience. I wonder how difficult it would have been to offer both presentations for our choice of viewing.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
I know MANY fellows and a few ladies that I have grown up with or went to school with who suffer from attention deficit, and they have done so from age 3 or 4. Now, 50+ years later, if every one of them put their minds together, they could not come up with the eloquent sentence structures, vocabulary and orchestrated responses I have read in your and Clifton's replies. Every one of them would laugh at the idea of attending a conference. Not a one of them would scroll down after being entertained by a TED talk to see what comments are listed. TED talks that go longer than 10 minutes would surely loose them. They are productive souls (they all work and pay taxes) and they love their children, but improving their minds is not even a blip on their radars. They are very comfortable in their life-styles for they have all chosen paths that generally do not require them to focus for 1 minute at a time while working in surroundings where no-body is chiding them for their absence of attention. No "living hell" (that you claim to have suffered for 50 years) for any of them. They like who they are. In just this one paragraph of yours, the words: tenor, remarks, theory, agreement, substandard, knee-jerk, diagnosis, irresponsible, disparaging, vehemence, encounter, disbelief, buy-in... these words are not in their collective vocabularies. I have read so VERY MANY papers and treatises, dissertations and critiques by learned men who, out of financial concerns for themselves, desperately defend an established process or procedure where clinical evidence that the processes and/or procedures are causing great harm... selfishly and myopically upholding only those studies that were FUNDED by drug manufacturers with a long history of fraud, knowingly causing harm and death while generating tremendous financial profits. Your and Clifton's remarks certainly SEEM to lean heavily in that self-serving direction, as they don't remotely fit any of my 50+ years of observations.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
It would be wonderful if 'it' was "wisdom" that they had received and were parroting. 'It' falls in the category of knowledge, but far short of wisdom. It is painful to see a mind as beautiful as your own, infused with so much poison toward anything or anyone. Your "objectivity" is buried where Sir Robinson is concerned. He makes two illustrations about a dance and arts, and you attempt to make that his complete definition of "creativity". He did not insinuate that creativity and knowledge are antagonistic to each other... but that creativity is punished out of us. He states "a certain type of deductive reasoning" and you run with that to accuse him of being against deductive reasoning altogether. Having less than 12 minutes to challenge the minds of those watching and listening, how can he possibly cover all bases thoroughly? I don't know what your history is with this man, but you are allowing it to hurt you. Your imputations where no wrongs were committed, absence of objectivity and open misconstruing brings damage to your testimony now, and also brings into question every observation you have made in the past as well as those you will make. See yourself as a brilliant individual Crispin... all by yourself. There is no need to take a chisel to anyone.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
(continuing) I've worked in very many homes where someone in the house was watching a game-show featuring college youths. Listening to the proceedings was unavoidable. If a U.S. American male student was being interviewed and asked what his major was, 100% of the time, his answer was either drama or theatre. Where an Asian-American male student was interviewed, 100% of the time, his response was either engineering or mathematics. Spontaneous creativity had been wrung out of the demeanors of the engineering/mathematics group, just as hard-work was out-of-the-question for the other. 100% of the Asian group will be able to apply their trade, make positive contributions within society and provide well for themselves and their families. All but 0.04% of the other group will starve attempting to apply their trade while living with Mom and Dad and working at a fast-food drive-through window... if they're lucky. Why not be educated for the industry now (white and blue collar), AND maintain the creative juices for contributing to the radical design changes that our recent history shows to have popped all around us. It takes a loving teacher and a supportive hierarchy to provide an atmosphere of structure and discipline while nurturing individual thought generated questions and incorporating those into productive, hard-working pursuits.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
Deductive reasoning coupled with basic common-sense of understanding of what paths lead to life is what I have witnessed an absence of (almost a vacuum) in 98% of college-grads being placed in influential positions in government, companies, schools, colleges and organizations. That void is a result of creative thought and questions being laughed at, scorned and/or demonized within our educational system... punished for thinking outside the box. Skill of abstract and deductive reasoning are definitely transferable. They are received with excitement where the mind "receiving" has not been fully encumbered with fears of independent thinking through punishments and public belittlings. It is most interesting and enjoyable to me to read your beautifully composed sentences (you are a lovely writer), and yet for you to attempt to sway your readers to believe that Sir Robinson is against deductive reasoning is an enormous leap of false... as are your comments that he was espousing "enlightenment" and "industrialization" having aggravated our social structure. It seems that there is some "thing" underlying there.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
How can overly empathetic/sympathetic people compete in this world? Do they eventually end up jaded and bitter?
Hello Colleen Steen 500+. (You don't even look 30.) Thank you for your very kind words. I just realized that I have never once wondered if they were proud of me. Their obvious capacities for, and demonstrations of love, respect, desire to help others achieve, tender interactions with their children, is what I desired to instill (amoung other facets), but with their being 32 and 40, I do think that the days when dad dazzled them, are in the past. It is their time to dazzle their little ones.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
How can overly empathetic/sympathetic people compete in this world? Do they eventually end up jaded and bitter?
What about the joy of giving to others and serving others, simply because you can... where one has the physical and financial capacity along with the time and opportunity. Like borrowing a tool from your neighbor, where you always return it in better condition than when you picked it up... leave the neighborhood and planet a better place because you were here. Consciousness, mobility, hands, feet, a mind with free-will, our senses, our incredible opportunities, health, leisure time... these things are a gift to us EVERY SINGLE DAY. They were not owed to us. Use them to better the world while you can. My oldest son was at a regional track-meet. The winner of a race between him (native-American/European) and an African-American, would go to nationals. They were equally matched. Coming out of the starting blocks, the black athlete got ahead of his feet and fell hard on his hands, knees and stomach. David went back to assist him amid the furious protesting screams of his coach and most of those in the stands. After helping him up and brushing off his knees, the two took off together, eventually into a dead sprint. AGAIN, the black athlete fell and Dave went back again to help him... and the screams that had just died down, EXPLODED! They took off together and it was basically a photo-finish. My youngest son was completing in a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu tournament and quickly got a position on his opponent where Jake could have easily reversed the other fellow's elbow. Carefully applying pressure, he realized that his opponent must have taken pain killers before the match or he would have submitted and Jake would take the #1 trophy. Instead of causing an injury that might plague his opponent's elbow in his senior years and the referee refusing to do his job and protect the athletes by stopping the match, Jake released him. I am blessed to have sons who fully understand that winning doesn't always mean "coming in first". I am extremely proud of my sons.
Noface
Don Rogers
Posted over 2 years ago
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
I had replied to your other post before reading this one. In your shamelessly perjurous attack on Sir Robinson, you made the statement about 'This disorder is not "...still a matter for debate", is joined by your comment stating "blatant untruth about the danger of the medication" The only information that I have found corroborating your positions are the statements made by, and studies that were funded by, those who financially profit from the manufacture and distribution of the drugs used. The topic may not be in debate within the confines of your mind, but it most assuredly is in the real world. And there are reams of clinical data each in the US, Canada and most every nation in western Europe that speak of serious, life-threatening side-effects connected to those same drugs. I would still like to read your 1902 study.