![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jose writes:
It is extremely difficult to get an answer about how something works these days. However, it's very easy to find out how to work it. People want to be told what button to push. They don't want to know what happens when they push it. I don't know what came first, but I find very few people who even see a problem. In a technologically advanced state, inevitably the percentage of the population that knows how technologies work will shrink, whereas the percentage of the population that uses those technologies regularly will increase. Thus, the more advanced the state, the more people you have who regularly use technologies they don't understand. When people lived in caves, it's likely that everyone understood all the technologies he had to use, or nearly so. Today, almost nobody understands even a fraction of the technology that he uses each day, and indeed we all depend on technologies the workings of which we don't fully understand. The problem, then, arises whenever someone must step outside the very small envelope of interactions with a technology for which he is competent. We all know how to push buttons on a telephone to make a telephone call (the standard envelope), but how many of us know what to do if the buttons don't work as expected. Aviation is just one of many high-tech domains in which there are many who understand the standard envelope while not mastering the extended envelope; and I'm talking pilots here, not passengers. I notice this in discussions on this group. Most pilots (like most people in general) learn by rote, because this allows people to make use of technologies that they wouldn't be able to easily understand if they had to study the fundamental theory. This is why, for example, pilots here will insist that trim is used to relieve control pressures, and reject any other explanation of trim, even when the other explanations are precisely equivalent to their own. They learned the control-pressure explanation by rote, and they don't actually understand the theory behind trim, so they reject any explanation that doesn't correspond to what they were taught. Only someone who learned the actual theory will recognize multiple explanations as being mutually equivalent, and such people are rare. Training programs for complex activities typically emphasize rote learning, in order to keep those activities accessible to people with a wide range of intelligence levels. Forcing everyone to learn theory would exclude a significant chunk of trainees who might have trouble grasping abstract theory as opposed to a cookbook, rote approach to tasks. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 04:55 AM |
| Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 12:35 PM |
| Headwinds, always | Paul kgyy | Piloting | 36 | June 9th 05 02:05 AM |