Posts
Comments
New Zealand government research sort of does that. In 90s, the public research was reorganised into institutes - private companies but owned by government (government of day appoints the board members as position falls vacant). Initially, all government funding of these institutes was contestable - vaguely like the PI model. The cost and inefficiency of this system led to this be abandoned. Instead, the institutes get "Core" funding to support their core area (eg earth science in my case). Essentially the institutes propose very broad-brush programmes (so peer-driven) about how this will be spent. External panels (researchers from similar institutions overseas mostly, or possibly unis) critique it and a government bureaucracy evaluates against performance and alignment with government goals. Essentially it’s a negotiation process that sets a contract of around 5 years (from memory) which get tweaked as required. A similar model provides research funding (as opposed to teaching funding) to the universities. There are also several contestable funds, open to the whole research community.
Does it work? I doubt any system is perfect and this one has a number of downsides. It is certainly a much more efficient system (less scientist-hours spent chasing money, and less bureaucracy evaluating bids) than what preceded it. There are advantages to the individual scientist though in pursuing contestable funding, though most will involve teams of scientists, often across multiple institutes/universities. Core funding is tied to agreed programmes and the programme manager controls it. You can’t just do your thing on Core funding. Winning contestable funding means the team that won it is in control. Enough funding for your pet project and you can thumb your nose at institute management.
The downsides as I see them: The % of government funding going to each institute is very static. It is hard to convince the government that your discipline is now hotter and more important than the discipline of another institute. The opposite was true of the contestable model - uncertainty of future funding made investment in research infrastructure (eg vessels) uncertain. Scrapping between institutes over money turned to scrapping within institutes over money. Perhaps this is actually a major upside - at least the scrappers know what they are talking about unlike the bureaucrats. The accountability model is everyone’s bugbear. It's public money so asking for accountability is obviously reasonable, but it generally feels like time-consuming paperwork to clueless bureaucrats. There must be a better way.
It should be noted that the institutes total funding thus consists of Core funding, contestable funding but also commercial research contracts. Depending on the Institute, this can be pretty high. Ours has been up 50% commercial. Others even higher.
Well here (NZ), reclaimed land is often a very problematic climate and tectonic risk. Lots of discussion about managed retreat. Ok, plenty of 19th C stuff was done badly, but engineering for sealevel rise, earthquake (liquifaction), tsunami and storm exposure isnt cheap. Also, we have had too much finding-out-the-hard-way that coastal wetland was performing valuable environmental services that are not easily replaced. I am happy to have strong regulations around that. To make it work and be economic to maintain over very long term, then I think you need to have large area of land created compared to length of your seawall (the Dutch situation) and yes, the easy ones have been taken.
There are other things on with playgrounds I think. Here (NZ), there has been a big movement toward making playgrounds safer - which has made them a great deal less fun. Since children still want adventure and a challenge, they use playgrounds in ways not intended (eg on top of frames holding swings etc).
Apparently our kids were "feral". As far as I can tell, this was for being allowed in the bush unsupervised. They got by on one broken leg, 4 pulled elbows, one concussion plus usual scrapes and bruises which help teach limits. All but the concussion (on a school playground during break) happened while supervised. Maybe we werent paying enough attention.
But my own upbringing had far more freedom. Only 1km to beach and the rule was no going into water without an adult, no digging in sand dunes, and "careful on the road" walking to and fro. Oh and tell an adult where you were going. The environment did not seem as safe to us when our own children came along. Perception? Reality? Lot more cars for one thing.
Oh, and lets hear it for the scout movement. Getting really dirty, proper physical challenges. My son did sea scouts where supervision amounted mostly to ensuring they were wearing life jackets and fishing them out of water if required. They raced in, rigged their boats and got onto water as fast as possible with no direction at all. Water fights, boardings, and races all ensued. On the way, some pretty good water/boat skills developed mostly by osmosis.
I would give this a very low probability of it happening. The political risks are enormous. I don't think people react very well to having their toys taken away - including the people in your security apparatus that rulers would depend on to stifle revolt. Way worse than taking radios. I would also be extremely surprised if Russian commerce did not also depend on internet for marketing and sales now. Going back would be very hard.
But what it gets wrong is also interesting. It has an incoherent model of the world (which is probably what you would expect) and that messes with the writing.
Sorry for late reply. I meant that Contact begins with Eleanor listening to the sounds being picked up the radio telescopes and then suddenly hears the gutteral throbbing of the alien message.
Read a little more - the geologist inside me screaming "wrong,wrong, wrong" at every turn. Doesnt invite the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy scifi.
Opening is a massive steal from "Contact" (Sagan) in my opinion. "The low thrum of the spectrometer"!!!! This is straight steal from listening to radio telescope. Spectometers dont do that. I'm with Richard Kennaway on this. (and only read chapter 1 and 35.
Such much to agree with. I couldn't care less about long hair or stylishness but care a lot of about sense of humour and having things in common to do. But, hey, I have only really had one relationship, 30+ years and counting. Shape sadly does matter - I dont find very overweight attractive. Also wouldnt consider anyone not close to my age, probably +/- 2
First off, I am not in the USA (from NZ). I dont look back on my school years fondly (and I went to a lot of different schools thanks to family circumstance), but that was mainly due to bullying being incapable of sport, too bright and socially inept. However, the actually schooling part was something I very much enjoyed. Many teachers that inspired and effectively taught things I really wanted to know. I hated programming (we are talking punch card fortran) but was forced to learn it and hey, have been programming (writing models) for decades. Sometimes (often) teachers are right about forcing you to learn things (add propositional calculus to list) . Two of us skipped class for physics in final year as teacher said better off with textbook but please turn up for labs. Similarly learnt geography by visiting teacher after school for assignments as couldn't timetable it. From my own kids, Year 1-8 schooling here leaves somewhat to be desired but both kids thrived at high school and we were happy with how taught. Sciences and maths are very hierarchical in learning. What bothers me about the home schooling is tendency to drop the "boring" or difficult bits which then struggle later because fundamentals missing.
I cant see that working for a whole lot of subjects. At its' heart is idea of degree as accreditation of competence. However, "competence" extends far beyond passing an examination for a lot of subjects. eg most science subjects that I can think of. Actual work is likely involve field and/or lab work and when I hire, I am looking for grads that I have confidence in those competencies. I don't see how you acquire that from exams-only approach.
I would also say from my own experience that lectures were really only a big thing at first year (NZ uni) or in maths, and that I learned a hell of lot from interactions with my fellow students as we battled with material especially in the senior years (where we had a common room together). I did notice the arts students lived much more insular lives (my own children in arts did remarkably little interaction with classmates which surprised me).
The real nub, since you are looking at degree as a certification, is that faced with candidates from exam only uni, versus a traditional uni with compulsory lab and field work, which would I employ? I'd take the traditional. Could be different for humanities.
Mask-wearing falls foul of political values which are a major obstacle to rational thought. If just wearing a mask was ironclad protection, then there wouldn't be an issue. Those that wanted protection would wear them and those that preferred unmask could take the risk. The moment that there was a suggestion that an unknowingly infectious person could reduce the risk of infecting others if they masked then a can of worms opened up. The implication is that everyone's safety is improved if everyone wears mask. Whoops! that would be collective action versus personal responsibility. Any suggestion of collective action sounds too much like communism for some. And for others, well if collective action is necessary for safety (eg like road rules), then obviously the state should enforce it. Battle lines are drawn and rational thought flies off. Not to mention it being quite difficult to exactly quantify the effectiveness of masks (especially on an infectious person) given variations in type and use practice (ie are they worn in way that is effective - not to mention things like mask fitting and facial hair).
Given the no. of upscores on this, then maybe I should expand. Firstly, if don't suffer from insomnia then chances are that you get into bed, close your eyes and go to sleep. You are not counting sheep or some more sophisticated exercise in an effort to get to sleep. If you do suffer from insomnia, then this is this the destination you are aiming for. The sleep hygiene stuff is important because you want to train your brain that this place, this time is for sleep. But shutting off bad brain behavior is more complicated. Understanding the feedback loops is key to breaking them which is why I highly recommend the insomniacoach.com short course. But other key things for me were:
1/ the golden rule: Never toss and turn. Get out of bed and read for 15-20 minutes instead. This is surprisingly hard to adhere to but seriously, do it.
2/ mindfulness has thing of focusing on something (eg breathing) and when mind wonders off, then bringing it gently back. Your mind wanders off when going to sleep and if it wanders into a worry area, then it will stop you getting to sleep. Learning the trick of gently refocusing really helps that. It never worked for me to try mindfulness exercises in bed (other people have different experiences), but learning the trick by practice at other times helps.
3/ Body scan is an exercise you find in CBT-I and some mindfulness/meditation disciplines. This seemed totally counter-intuitive to me. Eg when I was struggling with sleep, I noticed body discomfort and if you start worrying about how your arms are arranged, then you are lost. However, what it actually teaches you (eventually), is how to ignore those body signals. Again, never worked for me to actually do this in bed.
Not instant fixes, but things that eventually work with practice and repetition.
Excellent! Not feeling tired makes it a lot easier to enjoy life.
Some self-administered CBT. The VA CBT-I app helped, as did understanding the issue via the free course at https://insomniacoach.com/. Complimentary was doing some mindfulness stuff. There was key things that worked together and never looked back since.
One of those behaviour spirals. Noticing that if brought back to alert before fully asleep (eg by hynpojerk or disturbance) then hard to get to sleep. Then starting to panic if it happens, then worrying about the insomnia etc etc, down you go.
A number of smart watches detect snoring, sleep apnea/oxygen level type issues. Sleep lab sounds expensive. Good luck with regular hours. My first job had 5:30am starts which quickly ended my wild night-owl antics of varsity. Have had regular sleep hours ever since (and became a morning-person to my surprise). Insomnia issue in later life had another cause.
Hmm, having spent last year helping out with 3 people receiving cancer treatment and becoming badly immune-compromised by that, I have some sympathy. It is a nightmare for these people and their carers. Not just covid but flu as well. During first lockdown here in NZ, it was a lot easier. People masked, distanced and isolated. But post-vaccination, everyone just wants to get on with lives and everyday tasks become risky for the immune-compromised and close contacts. I say good for your wookie for asking for distancing. It is hard to do when not the norm. And good for you for giving that person space without a fuss. You dont know what their story may be.
Couldnt agree more. I have no patience for audio and video. Too slow. Might watch instructional on video if I cant find decent manual. Not much into conferences either - just let me see the papers.
Well I battled with insomnia and the first bit of dealing with that is good sleep hygiene. Not exactly secret, but this would be rules like:
1/ regular bedtime.
2/ Use bed only for sleep and sex
3/ Relax before bed
4/ Room dark, quiet and comfortable temperature.
What are you issues with sleep quality exactly? Wakeful spells? getting to sleep?
I would agree that gap between conservative and liberal is large (and where I think a balkanized media is exacerbating the difference). I agree with original statement that many politicians have less radical (in public) views than the median voter because you need attract swing voters to win an election. Hardline politicians can only win in hardline electorates (but gerrymandering can help).
In the first poll, I see Republican support for specific measure to reduce CO2 range from 55%-88%. Since the questions deal with specifics, I think they avoid the tribal response and reflect true beliefs as opposed to "belief about beliefs".
On abortion, I agree that median democrats believes abortion should be legal in all cases, but NOT "up until birth" (low support for trimester).
Really? I am pretty horrified if either of those describe "median" positions. Doesnt seem to fit with eg:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/25/majority-of-americans-support-abortion-poll-finds---but-not-later-in-the-pregnancy/?sh=bfbc45b50744
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
Again, as an outsider, I scratch my head over the behavior of the US politicians themselves. It seems more centrist positions would indeed bolster election chances, but instead politicians play to their bases and I dont think that helped Trump nor is it helping Biden. Despise of compromise? Or that playing to the base is necessary for winning the primary and you cant retreat? I find your hypothesis 4 pretty compelling.
I think elections are generally close because successful parties have evolved to find electable platforms. If you always lost, you would change your platform to become more electable. (Look at the rise the "Labour" parties in countries like UK, Australia and NZ as they gradually lost extreme positions. Similar things are happening in Green movements).
I think when you look at level remaining support for truly disastrously unpopular governments, it seems about 50-60% of population view politics as tribal and would vote for their tribe no matter who the candidate is or what the policy statement. Furthermore, voters are likely to vote for party rather than candidate because you only get your preferred policies if you your party wins. Of the remainder, a substantial proportion are still tribal and would only vote for the opposition rarely in cases where fed up. ("death of a thousand cuts"). Truly swinging voters probably have a disproportionate influence on elections. As an outsider looking in on USA, it seems to me that polarization is being driven by a balkanized media (people can effectively choose a "reality" from their news sources). These can fan tribalism (it is in the media interest) using the traditional tribal identities of race, religion and class. Excessive power given to president compared to congress bypasses the ameliorating influences that parliamentary systems possess. The voting system in USA also makes it extremely hard for other parties to attract any votes so the art of compromise necessary in proportional systems is missing (and indeed despised).
"Being unafraid to look stupid is a truly formidable quality" - I like this. I use a rather similar strategy to get things out of the other people that otherwise might not bother to help or respond. I propose a solution or put up a prototype that really wont work, public as possible. Others then jump to respond to show how much better they are and how stupid I am. Works best against big egos and/or people that don't like me. Shamelessly borrowed from film on discovery of DNA where Watson and Crick deployed it against Pauling. Dont know how true the film was but I was struck by the tactic.
I abused caffeine pretty heavily getting thesis done. Gave up coffee a few years later but it was hard - first thing in the morning, my mouth was ready for coffee and screamed "what is this?!!" when it got tea. My wife got headaches if she didnt get her daily hit so she also went cold turkey which helped.
When I really need it (up very early for "red-eye special flight" to the capital or a long drive) then I have coffee. We are talking 4-5 times a year. Because I normally only drink tea, I think I get a big hit from it in terms of short term improved concentration.
I personally think the negatives outweigh benefits but I don't have peer-reviewed data to back it.
Yes, I agree. Or at very least a much greater use of referendum in legislation making.
i dont think the US government would fit the normal definition of a modern parliament. We (NZ) have had the odd independent in parliament but extremely rare - generally an electoral MP that has fallen out with their party. Much more common in Australia but they have a different voting system (preferential in Aus, versus MMP here). As to mess in Israel, they also have MMP, but with a threshold of only 3% to get an MP into parliament. Any time last 28 years that people complain that our threshold is too low, Israel and Italy are pointed to as why lowering it would be a bad idea.
The US to my mind has power structure upside down - too much power concentrated in executive with little in way of handbrakes. Parliaments generally have president/monarch as constitutional backstop instead. A number of parliaments go further (eg UK, Canada, Australia and NZ) and have parliamentary supremacy where parliament can overrule both executive (aka backbench revolt) and the judiciary.
Well Australia tried not to have parties - they weren't recognized by the constitution till 1977 - but they happened anyway. Getting agreement on a piece of legislation is very much about the art compromise unless you have a direct democracy. Compromises like, if you vote for this, then I will vote for that. This builds the electoral platform that people actually vote on and naturally give rise to parties. A lot of parliament's strength come from parties - especially the opposition being effectively a shadow government and able to make a smooth transition to power. That's not to say it cant be improved on, but I doubt you can get a away from parties forming either formally or informally. Also, dont forget that in many westminister parliaments, the house debates and voting are public grandstanding, while the real work (and the important compromises) happen in select committee.
I am not sure you can read too much by immediate reaction. If the article amounts to an attack on beliefs they are vested in, then initial reactions can be strongly defensive (lawyer mode - defend a position), but a week of thinking about it can result in change. The positive sign there is coming back to you with more questions. (a shift to science mode - curiosity about truth).
I read an interesting book defending and explaining the truth of evolution written primarily for a Christian audience. The author explained the process whereby he changed from being 6-day creationist to conventional science position. It wasnt quick, it involved multiple arguments, and it also needed time for him to think without being pressured about it by evolutionists.
I battled pretty major insomnia and beat it with "bog-standard" CBT-I. Reflecting, i think there are key useful tricks.
1/ Never toss and turn. Get up and read for 20min. Seriously.
2/ Learn some kind of mindfulness/meditation exercises that you practise when not in bed. Particularly body-scan. I didn't understand why CPT-I pushed this as it seemed counterintuitive, but it trains your brain NOT to notice discomfort/body position.
Well government bureaucracies have some special constraints. The tax payer wants them to be as small and cheap as possible, but to perform like an organization of 10 times the size. The pandemic through interesting curve balls to the health system. In normal times, the system is expected to be extremely lean and focused on maximizing health benefit for dollar. Every cent spent on a bureaucrat is a cent not spent on someone's heath. In not-normal times, it suddenly has to come up with rules for public safety - things like maximum no. of people in indoor venues; priority rules for access to quarantine etc. From the bureaucracy point of view the rules have to be simple enough to administer with the resource available. To Joe Public, they are an ass because they don't take into account things like ventilation, size of venue, what people do (eg singing) etc etc. Commonly, you also get people expecting instant change of rules based in new information which, with sober consideration, would be incomplete, poorly tested and contradictory (public filtering out studies that don't say what they want to hear). What people don't think about is what resources would be required to administer flexible and truly sensible rules - and whether they would be prepared to pay for them. I pity the well-meaning souls in our system struggling to do the right things with competing demands from public safety and economic impact.
Interesting. I worked in and with a few bureaucracies in NZ and I very much doubt there is a single model to explain or predict behavior, because multiple utilities and motivations are present. They are plagued (as are private companies) by the levels problem where information between levels of management can get twisted by differing motivations and skill level. As other commentators have pointed out, upper levels of the management can be extremely risk adverse because they crucified for mistakes and unrewarded for success. While "blame-minimization" might seem appropriate, there are other factors at play. Large among them would be motivation. Some bureaucrats are empire-builders and their utility function is ever-increasing areas of control, (career administrators in middle-management role) but others got into the game in the first place because they wanted to change the world, and the tools of government seemed like a good place to find power. With that kind of motivation, they tend to rise quickly and I see a fair no. of them in high positions, especially in education, health, welfare. They feel the forces of blame, but are individually motivated to make change. Good luck predicting outcomes there.
The other prediction problem would relate to where in the organization that a decision is made. The more technical the decision, the more likely that is being made at low level in organization among the technocrats. The decision may still have to percolate up the levels which it may be misunderstood or subtly reframed to make a middle manager look good, (another predictability problem) but mostly I would expect such decisions to reflect perceived technical utility. (eg best timing for a booster vaccination).
200 years ago was different world - reading wasnt required. Ask anyone who cant read as an adult how tough that is. The 10% with dyslexia need intervention fast.
Ok, I am curious, if they dont read or write in first 4-5 years, what do you expect them to learn in those years?
Or maybe another place. Extremely unusual for kids here to have phones in first 4-5 years of schooling. And much as my dyslexic relative would like to read what a computer game is saying, it doesnt inspire the hard work needed for learning to read. Not fun compared to other screaming around with a ball.
Living in the modern world means that a child really needs to learn to read and write/type. For many children, they would much rather be outside playing. Me and my children were motivated and reading before arriving at the school gate. We "suffered" the harms above to some extent unnecessarily but for many, many of classmates, some from homes with no books, learning those basics was tough. They certainly werent going to learn it at school without restricting their liberties. The harms suffered in that were well and truly compensated for by the critical life skill of reading.
Helping with a dyslexic, I see the school in no way able to cope with current staffing. They really want you to pay for outside school programmes with one on one teaching. Effective if you can afford it, but well beyond the means of many families.
Pattern - to first question. In my country, schools and teacher in schools are judged formally or informally by pass rates. Universities, not much, and university lecturers would only be investigated if there was serious concerns about incompetence or unfair exams.
As I said, my discomfort is with tone that teachers are doing it wrong and all teachers are bad.
Eg "It's fine if the kids aren't paying attention to what you're teaching, why are you trying to teach 20 kids at once anyway?"
Well, because as teacher, you dont have a choice.
eg "Have it run until 1720". So how many hours a day do you think teachers should be working then? Every teacher I know is at school early, home late and working through the evening. No wonder they burn out. This does not strike me as remotely realistic.
I am concerned that teaching is ineffective, that classroom failure has serious downstream effects. The harms here: Well frankly, I am not convinced that teacher demanding your attention is a harm. Fact of life in a society that needs educated people.
Hmm, I had to look up what "critical theory" is, but I do remember complaints like in early 80s about one college in particular. A friend of sister went through it and called it the "Society for the Protection of the Unborn Thought" (Society for Protection for Unborn Child was a prominant anti-abortion organisation here). Needless to say, it didnt make an impression on her, and think that particular problem vanished in reforms of the 90s.
My daughter went through the conventional college route to teaching but the complaint were more lecturers hobby horses on continuous teaching practise evaluation, learning styles etc. - ie theoretically useful but not the most important things for beginner teachers. Lots of what an ideal learner and classroom should be like but not a lot on how to get there.
ChristianKI. That I think is a USA problem, but many teachers here (NZ) have rated teaching college as pretty much waste of time, with all their real learning coming from ground-zero experience under good mentors. As I perceive it, the problem with teaching college is that they are closely aligned with the university system and lecturers want to teach their research interests, not necessarily "strategies for effective engagement of ADHD and ASD students in your classroom". My daughter-in-law went through experimental system where she was put into classroom of low-decile school as paid teacher after only a few weeks of intensive training, albeit with far reduced hours and a mentor. A few week-long intensive training camps during the year. Something of "crucible experience" with I gather a substantial dropout rate and a longer route to full teacher registration, but arguably a better training than college. Long term analysis of the programme will be interesting.
I would admit outright that there are bad teachers - I was fortunate in not having many, but certainly knew which ones in the school were. What I am uncomfortable with is that I perceive that the harms described are criticisms of the process, whereas I think that much of the process is created by the structures in which school exist. Schools structures and teaching practise has evolved to meet the expectations and constraints that the wider society has imposed.
Eg - paying attention. Well if teacher is explaining say difficult part of german grammar that the textbook (if there is one) doesnt cover well, then yes, the teacher wants the student attention. If student prefers Twitter and teacher doesnt demand, then what are the consequences? Possibility 1. The student flunks exam. At uni level, this is what happens. No consequences for lecturer, and only for student. In my country, teachers AND schools are judged on pass rate. Ergo - teacher demands attention. Possibility 2. Student confronted with the grammar asks for teachers help. Teacher has to go over the point again unnecessarily, using time that could have been spent advancing the wider learning. Ergo - teacher demands attention. Possibility 3. Student got the point, doesnt need teacher, so why not spend time on Twitter? Indeed, and if teacher suspects that will probably ignore - except that social pressure applies. Why is x allowed on Twitter but I am not?
The alternative to school seems to be home schooling. Well and good but a massive investment (if thought of in terms of earnings lost by parent teacher). This is reducing class size to one. If class size doesnt matter, then why is this a better option again?
I have recent dealings with extended family member who is dyslexic - a common problem estimated at about 10% pop. Local dyslexia association fights hard for change in practise to cope, but hard cold reality is that the practises advocated for are just not practical with many real-world classrooms. A teacher does not have the time given current resourcing within my country. The answer is better resourcing, but that is a structural problem. Fix that and you can fix the teaching practise.
"What makes you believe that?"
Largely based on studies on class size. Some say effect is only modest but reducing class size from 35 to 25 is pretty meaningless. Reducing below 20 though is different story. A high-needs child in a large classroom is really going struggle - only so much time that a teacher can give them. I have also looked at what experiments in "Charter schools" have done - with much higher $$ per child than state are able give.
Anecdotally, (and from serving on school board), what is wanted is quality teachers but pay and conditions make retention difficult.
Having lived with teachers, in-laws are teachers, daughter and daughter-in-law are teachers, I find some of criticism of schools unrealistic. Faced with 30 kids, 10 of them from dysfunctional homes, 3 with specific learning difficulties and expectations from society/government that they will be ready pass this exam at end of the year, some tough choices get made. Getting better results from schools needs more funding than taxpayers are prepared to hand out. Pay out lots of dough to private schools and you get two big bonuses - much smaller classes and far fewer children from dysfunctional families.
Do you mean something like, "Whether or not we deem an observation to be 'good' depends on why we're making observations, since 'goodness' only exists in relation to goals?"
Frankly, yes. I would be regarded as a very absent-minded person, for the usual reason of spending a lot of time thinking and pretty much oblivious to other things. I like my daily life structured by habit so brain is unencumbered by paying attention to the mundane. I dont claim this as a good thing, but it is the what I am. The meaning of "Observation" to me is strongly rooted in my training and something I "turn on" when required (or when it suits as when out tramping or exercising). I notice landscapes, I notice plants, I notice rocks as these are things that I have some training in seeing. I like people-watching but I would say that I am very much observing in relation to a goal.
To me vocabulary (which I think is a brain shortcut to a category/concept) is a big help in seeing. I read "Landmarks" (Robert MacFarlane) which was about specialised vocabularies and I enjoyed some of the odd words. One was "smeuse" - a hole in hedge or fence made by repeated passage of animals. The thing is, once I had read about it, I suddenly started noticing them. But to your question as where do the words come from? The vocabularies in Landmarks come from specialised needs of people in particular environments. Peat-diggers need more specialised words to describe peat bogs to survive and proper.
So observation does proceed vocabulary. Science is full of it -every field has to develop of specialized vocab to communicate observation. But once there is a vocab, then its strongly assists observation. Can this hinder seeing? Yes, that too. The brain will take whatever shortcut it can and schemata will miss plenty when the brain has more urgent things to do. Watson's excuse for the not knowing the no. of stairs would be that he never needed to - he had more important things to think about.
But I think there are ways to employ both. Early in my career, I had do a fair amount of mudlogging from coal exploration wells - a boring but vital job. We had a standardized vocabulary for describing what we saw that was structured into a list. Working your way through it, metre by metre, kept you observing what was important even when bored out of your skull. And at the end of list was - "what is different?". A key to make a novel observation that was outside the parameters of the list.
I am pretty interested to see where this goes. Making good observations seems very dependent on what we are looking for, (and having a vocabulary for the observation). Ways to break through some of these borders?
Fascinating. As someone who has used map and compass from almost as long as I can remember, work with maps everyday and having lived most of my life pre-cellphone, your description was also an insight into another way of looking at the world. What is obvious to one is not obvious to another and I suspect I would get quickly lost in other worlds you inhabit.
Can I recommend that you do a little reading on geomorphology? I first read a textbook on that at high school and it changed the way I looked at the world. Landscapes talked back to me. Studying geology and making geological maps massively reinforced it. You can anticipate what the landscape will do as you trasverse it. Like geological mapping, you are doing constant bayesian updates. Building a model in your head, making predictions and then a very short time later comparing it to what is in the territory itself.
My company wouldnt consider 20% time, but we do have a mechanism for new ideas. There is a fund of set size that you can apply to if you think you have an innovative idea worth exploring. Process is simple and structure of proposal needs to be "fast-fail" - it expects initial proposal will be focussed on feasibily and proof-of-value. Of course it is always over-subscribed but at least many things get to be tried. If first phase comes up promising you can get a lot more than 20% of time funded.
An unhelpful suggestion would be grow up playing the violin or trombone. However, I think Yair's suggestion is a good one. I am not confident of developing absolute pitch if you havent mastered relative pitch. Musical examination often have a "aural" session which is all about relative pitch. As a result, there is a lot of teaching aids for learning and practising. A good start with a LOT of online resource is learning to sight-sing (assuming you can already read music). Just google sight-singing.