|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 23, 2017 6:25:41 GMT
the saying, "In at the deep end", is this really the best way to learn *anything*....
I was reminded of how ludicrous this saying was by a comedian, John Richardson, who was "Encouraged" to learn how to ice skate this way.
Cue lots of bruising....
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 23, 2017 11:55:33 GMT
I believe there is a lot of truth in that statement. In my own experiences, I've learned a lot more when I was "in over my head" then I ever learned in school where the only motivation for learning was a good grade on the report card. When it's "do or die" I preferred to go with the doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 23, 2017 14:07:19 GMT
yes and no.
It kind of depends on your interpretation and application of it.
on the one hand, it is hard to swim if the water is too shallow to float. but on the other, if you take a child who has never been in water and pitch him in the deep end of the pool, with no preparation whatsoever, you stand pretty even chances of him ending up with a longstanding fear of water.
taken literally, it is generally accepted among professional swim instructors that you start the class out in water shallow enough that they have the security of knowing if things go badly they can just stand up. but at the same time, there comes a time when the students practice in water deep enough they develop the confidence of knowing they are okay without having that security blanket. I've met a lot of people who have an unreasoning fear of deep water. they are fine in 8-10 or even 15 feet of water (swimming pool deep) but water deeper than that terrifies them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 23, 2017 15:47:56 GMT
I like this. Simple, yet with a considerable scope as to how they could go about testing it.
*Edit*
What could they use to test this? It has to be something that has a clear way of measuring success, they don't already know how to do (or know similar skills) and which can be tested in 7-10 days at most.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 23, 2017 18:46:45 GMT
I like this. Simple, yet with a considerable scope as to how they could go about testing it. *Edit* What could they use to test this? It has to be something that has a clear way of measuring success, they don't already know how to do (or know similar skills) and which can be tested in 7-10 days at most. I have a few ideas, but they may involve sanity damage. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 25, 2017 16:21:34 GMT
OK -
As I've mentioned before, I had no formal "film school" training or whatnot before I got my job as a movie reviewer. In fact, I didn't ask for it; I proposed that we pick up a review a sister publication was doing, and in response was handed a stack of passes and assigned to do it myself. I had a backing in English lit and composition to cover the writing part, and I knew a little about the entertainment industry from independent study. But I'm not a "film scholar" by any means, and much of what happened at first was on-the-job training as I got into movies and began following up with further independent study.
So, my train of thought...
Discovery Networks presently has a long-running relationship with Hasbro.
Hasbro, either outright or through Shout! Factory, has the rights to most of the animated feature-length films based on their properties, including such bits as "My Little Pony", "Transformers", and "G. I. Joe". In fact, each property has at least one film that either screened theatrically or was slated for a theatrical screening.
Our two hosts, and a group of film students, are put together in an impromptu screening room. During the course of a specific period, they'll be watching some of these movies, possibly MST3K-style. Before each movie, they'll have access to some various common materials movie-goers and professional reviewers may have handy, including popcorn, soda, movie theater-style nachos, and material to take notes with. After each movie, they'll have a laptop and some time to hammer out a review that follows a fixed format (600 words, must include title of the film, their assigned code name, a final score, and the film's run time & rating); cheat sheets will be provided with the names of the cast and characters. They'll watch multiple films, either until such time as they can't take it anymore or the filming deadline is met.
The completed reviews will be analyzed by a group of individuals including one or more "film studies" instructors and one or more actual movie reviewers. Once everything is done, each review will be publicly critiqued, and the experts will be challenged to guess who is who.
It might be soft on actual science, but it's something that will likely generate more than a few laughs while also being a thing that can be done while other matters are being handled in the background (such as researchers gathering information or the producers getting filming arrangements set up).
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 26, 2017 7:02:56 GMT
I like this. Simple, yet with a considerable scope as to how they could go about testing it. *Edit* What could they use to test this? It has to be something that has a clear way of measuring success, they don't already know how to do (or know similar skills) and which can be tested in 7-10 days at most. I have s suggestion.... 7-10 days, about the right time needed... Take a "random subject", any random subject at all, but one that is in public domain, not a specialised subject matter. At "High school" education level. Take two groups of people... One who sat that exam at school and passed, within the last 5-10 yrs, and one set that didnt do tat subject at school. Set them "Revision" work for the week, to revise as much as possible on the exam. And let them revise together and help each other... The basic idea of this myth is that by doing the job you learn "On the job" and can with help from others just jump in at the sharp end, I dont think anyone would expect that to be done by self learning, so lets let everyone help each other?. The idea is not to see how many pass, but to see the difference in pass marks between the two groups, can those who have never studded the matter at all, get "Bloody close" to a pass mark with such little time for preparation?.. Here is one more suggestion, Cake decorating.... Can someone who has never decorated a cake get maybe a weeks tuition in how to do it professionally, and them produce a passable result. This is of course presuming they aint a total klutz in the kitchen already... Look, I know someone who when they did beans on toast, it took two days to clean the toaster... we did tell them your supposed to do the beans separately?.. How can ANYONE burn a boiled egg?.. We all know someone who just cant manage to get things right in a kitchen for love nor money. Could I take someone who shows an interest in my own trade of Bar work and pass them through the NLC "Licence" inside a week?.. Could I teach someone to drive a HGV truck to test standard with just ONE weeks training?. Possibly, but they must be able to show some basic skills aptitude at the very start... again, I know someone who just shouldnt be allowed on the road on a skateboard they are that clumsy... On the Driving test, show me a reasonably good sensible driver of a large van, and I can get them through the HGV part easily, I suppose, but if you never drove anything as large as say a 7seater MPV, we may struggle?.. And again, "Dont let them get me", if you want them "sane" after the event, dont choose me as a driving instructor... I can do the theory, but I am the worlds WORST "backseat driver" as a passenger if I tried to teach someone to drive.. I have no patience for fools?.. and "everyone" on the road that aint me is a fool when I drive. They may or may not be a fool, but I find presuming they are saves time... I can then be pleasantly surprised when they turn out to be good drivers?.. [..if that ever happens...] [/end sarcasm now perhaps?.. ] If you hold anything greater than a basic car licence, I am to presume you may have better skills, unfortunately, I see proof daily that all advanced drivers are not immune to foolery... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 26, 2017 13:29:19 GMT
Two thoughts;
MB usually likes to restrict testing to the Hosts, its what they are paid for after all. Bringing in groups costs money, and a test they can do in a day or two, so tends to be more restricted.
A lot depends on the existing skill sets of the new hosts, which for the most part we don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 26, 2017 13:47:58 GMT
I think we are losing the focus of the myth a bit. I think this will be more along the lines of the learning to play golf by video game.
first we need to find something they don't already have plenty of experience with. tending bar would be an example.
give one a bit of coaching on making mixed drinks, and the other learns only the technical terminology.
then they BOTH have a timed trial in which they are given a list of drinks to make, with recipe included.
or perhaps better, the advanced driving idea. bring in a simulator, and one trainee goes straight to the difficult terrain and bad traffic, and the other goes through a progressive training course.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 28, 2017 10:27:37 GMT
Two thoughts; MB usually likes to restrict testing to the Hosts, its what they are paid for after all. Bringing in groups costs money, and a test they can do in a day or two, so tends to be more restricted. A lot depends on the existing skill sets of the new hosts, which for the most part we don't know. Cross-thread a few ideas, and as we expect them to gain new skill-sets quickly, throw the new hosts "In at the deep end", make em "Bite the bullet", and learn new things quickly?... Or, pick a skill-set that one of the hosts has but the other doesnt and see how much they can learn "On the job" by fabricating alongside the experienced one the necessary equipment to test another myth.. On that subject, I can teach you pretty much all you need to know about basic fabrication using Wood in about a week. Getting GOOD at it, that takes a decade or two, but on paper, for a written test, I could show you much inside a week?.. Metal work is just the same, but you need BIGGER tools with MORE power... Well, there is the bit about welding, but thats just fast setting glue if you ask me?.. and I have some wood glues that are "Water reactive" in that when they are made wet they set almost immediately... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 28, 2017 14:07:26 GMT
We have two hosts ideally they'd want to find two things neither has any experience with/in. That way over the course of a few days each can be taught the basics in one of those things then both 'thrown in' and tested on both skills over, say, two days.
Assume two days for the final testing (one day for each skill/job/whatever), plus a normal shooting schedules of 7-10 days overall. So whatever they are doing has to be simple enough for someone to be taught the basics in 5-8 days. I'd say at this point go with the lower figure of 5 days, as this gives them extra time should there be any delays. And if everything goes as scheduled it gives them extra time to focus on other things or just give the hosts a bit of time off. Trust me, they will probably be delighted to have a day or two to relax by the time they get halfway through filming.
Piloting is out, they did that in the Search and one of them holds a pilots license. Firearms are something they will have been trained in by now, since its a skill they are likely to be using fairly often. 'Sales' is something that you can either do or not, and runs into issues of product placement.
*Edit*
What about a two for one; "Its not Rocket Science"? They could be tasked with making a rocket that carries a fragile cargo that has to be returned to Earth intact, maybe eggs. One of them gets instruction and learning from a real Rocket Scientist, the other doesn't, although both have access to the same books.
Success could be measured based on altitude of the flight and how intact the cargo is on landing.
Maybe the other test could be a simple race using a sail boat or jet ski, which one host gets while the other is off learning about rockets.
As the race involves no builds at all that might be something they could fit in a normal working week.
Both should give good visuals, both in regards setup and also in the final test. In the latter case it would be very easy to see who 'won' without any graphs being thrown at the viewer.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 28, 2017 14:39:09 GMT
We have two hosts ideally they'd want to find two things neither has any experience with/in. That way over the course of a few days each can be taught the basics in one of those things then both 'thrown in' and tested on both skills over, say, two days. Assume two days for the final testing (one day for each skill/job/whatever), plus a normal shooting schedules of 7-10 days overall. So whatever they are doing has to be simple enough for someone to be taught the basics in 5-8 days. I'd say at this point go with the lower figure of 5 days, as this gives them extra time should there be any delays. And if everything goes as scheduled it gives them extra time to focus on other things or just give the hosts a bit of time off. Trust me, they will probably be delighted to have a day or two to relax by the time they get halfway through filming. Piloting is out, they did that in the Search and one of them holds a pilots license. Firearms are something they will have been trained in by now, since its a skill they are likely to be using fairly often. 'Sales' is something that you can either do or not, and runs into issues of product placement. *Edit* What about a two for one; "Its not Rocket Science"? They could be tasked with making a rocket that carries a fragile cargo that has to be returned to Earth intact, maybe eggs. One of them gets instruction and learning from a real Rocket Scientist, the other doesn't, although both have access to the same books. Success could be measured based on altitude of the flight and how intact the cargo is on landing. Maybe the other test could be a simple race using a sail boat or jet ski, which one host gets while the other is off learning about rockets. As the race involves no builds at all that might be something they could fit in a normal working week. Both should give good visuals, both in regards setup and also in the final test. In the latter case it would be very easy to see who 'won' without any graphs being thrown at the viewer. was going to say: one thrown in, and the other getting coaching. final test is after equal learning time. |
|
|
|
Post by koshka on Jun 21, 2017 16:06:24 GMT
Here is one more suggestion, Cake decorating.... Can someone who has never decorated a cake get maybe a weeks tuition in how to do it professionally, and them produce a passable result. Assuming neither of the new guys has baking experience, this would be an easy test. I just searched online, and there's two major craft store chains that offer cake decorating classes in the Santa Clarita area. There's also tons of cake decorating tutorial videos on YouTube. For something on the lines of J&A's golf trip, one of the guys gets classes and the other one gets the same amount of time to experiment with a couple tubs of frosting, some layer cakes, and those tutorial vids. However, it might be closer to the spirit of the saying for the second host to not get the vids -- here's some frosting, here's a piping bag, here's some cake, figure it out. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 22, 2017 9:09:22 GMT
Here is one more suggestion, Cake decorating.... Can someone who has never decorated a cake get maybe a weeks tuition in how to do it professionally, and them produce a passable result. Assuming neither of the new guys has baking experience, this would be an easy test. I just searched online, and there's two major craft store chains that offer cake decorating classes in the Santa Clarita area. There's also tons of cake decorating tutorial videos on YouTube. For something on the lines of J&A's golf trip, one of the guys gets classes and the other one gets the same amount of time to experiment with a couple tubs of frosting, some layer cakes, and those tutorial vids. However, it might be closer to the spirit of the saying for the second host to not get the vids -- here's some frosting, here's a piping bag, here's some cake, figure it out. This I like. For many reasons starting with the war on waste, it should be at least edible, and served to the cast and crew afterwards to prove that. I can see high hilarity ensuing with this, it could be a very comedic episode, how to make a cake "Mythbusters" style... "I am following an old Hyneman recipe that relies on two ounces of C4 as a raising agent".... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 22, 2017 14:18:03 GMT
just a reminder that the origin of the idiom is the idea that the best way to teach a child to swim is to throw them in deep water and let them figure it out.
this would indicate that something with a succeed/fail result would be the best test.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 23, 2017 5:13:15 GMT
just a reminder that the origin of the idiom is the idea that the best way to teach a child to swim is to throw them in deep water and let them figure it out. this would indicate that something with a succeed/fail result would be the best test. Edible or no thanks I will pass on that?.. The in at the deep end swimming myth came from the myth [confirmed] that most new-born babies could swim by instinct and if you took them swimming before they forget, and they would swim from day 1... It has been proven that this is indeed true, and newborn human babies will quite happily swim, with minimum instruction. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 23, 2017 14:25:12 GMT
just a reminder that the origin of the idiom is the idea that the best way to teach a child to swim is to throw them in deep water and let them figure it out. this would indicate that something with a succeed/fail result would be the best test. Edible or no thanks I will pass on that?.. The in at the deep end swimming myth came from the myth [confirmed] that most new-born babies could swim by instinct and if you took them swimming before they forget, and they would swim from day 1... It has been proven that this is indeed true, and newborn human babies will quite happily swim, with minimum instruction. I don't know about you, but I heard in at the deep end long before I heard newborns could swim by instinct. |
|
|
|
Post by koshka on Jun 23, 2017 18:54:08 GMT
Same here -- I cannot swim because I had an instructor with several flaws in his teaching style, including a belief in this saying.
Oh, and if we're doing the cake test, I almost forgot: No Fondant. While draping fondant over a cake layer and getting it to lay smoothly isn't child's play, it's also fairly close to the construction techniques the guys used on the cardboard boat test.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 24, 2017 7:35:04 GMT
They can be asked to just do Icing instead then.
Which although pretty much the same as say plastering a wall, still is a skill you need to practise to stay in touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 24, 2017 8:20:09 GMT
They can be asked to just do Icing instead then. Which although pretty much the same as say plastering a wall, still is a skill you need to practise to stay in touch. baking the cake would be a better test as that is more of a go/no go scenario. decorating a cake is a subjective thing and some would say I am good at it and others would say I'm a failure at it. |
|
