I had a thought earlier: an interesting way to introduce algebra. It seems to me that many students who struggle have a hard time with the notion that a letter can "hold" the value of a number. I've heard people say they were good at math until we started using letters. This implies, to me, difficulty in understanding symbolism and representation, at least with numbers (and letters). An "a" has the value of the "eh" sound, and a "4" has the value of this many "items": / / / /. How can an "a" suddenly have a value of "/ / / /"?
There are a couple ways I can think of for getting around this sticking point. The first would use roman numerals, which are usually already introduced in elementary (or middle) school. Just explaining that the concept of "/ / / /" can be represented by either the symbol "4" or "IV" starts to introduce students to the idea that multiple symbols can be used to represent a concept. Once students are comfortable with that idea, it could be extrapolated: let's make a "new" number system with whatever symbols you want.
Another way to lead to the same point would be to start with "secret" codes. Kids generally become familiar with breaking codes in some way or another (e.g. the backs of cereal boxes). Have them start by making an alphabetic code since this will be most familiar. Once that's okay, have them add numbers to their code. At this point, you could go two ways: to the same place the previous idea brought you or to "higher" level algebra.
For the first way, either of the previous methods brings students to the understanding that concepts can be assigned any symbol you choose. Therefore, we can "change" the symbols for the numbers. Start by using their code to do basic math (e.g. :)=4, *=5, :)+*=?). At some point, you could bring in letters as symbols and move toward "actual" algebra (e.g. a+4=10, a=?).
The other way would build on this idea of a secret code. Students would write a series of math equations using their symbols and their classmates would have to figure out what the symbols are. For example, :)-4=* , :)+2=%, *+%=:) or similar but using the code without the numbers. This might be difficult to do with a full set of numbers, so just doing a defined range (e.g. 1-3) could work better. I'm not sure how well it would work, but at least it's framed as a game which could keep students interested longer. It also doesn't have to be called "algebra", and sometimes fear can be the biggest inhibitor to learning.
In any case, it would be interesting to sit down with some kids, young or old, and see how they respond to these ideas and how well they help the student to grasp the basic concepts necessary for algebra.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Saturday, January 12, 2013
A Simple Solution
Here's an intriguing thought: what if I could solve all of our problems with one simple solution?
Well here it is, the solution to all of our troubles: Decrease weekly working hours while keeping yearly salaries the same.
How does this solve our problems, you ask? While it may sound great to those who don't want to work as much, I'm sure others will quickly think of lots of problems with this plan. The following is my reasoning of how it would help.
(PS: I did no research/number-crunching for this. It is merely an interesting thought meant as a discussion point.)
Economy:
All of the current "fixes" for the economy will not truly fix it. They might help it in the short-term, but something drastic needs to happen for the long-term. The current economy is built on the premise of infinite production and infinite growth. Last I checked, we live on a finite planet with finite resources. Even if recycling and reuse efforts were increased, not everything fits into these categories. At any given point in time (i.e. ignoring inflation), there is a finite amount of money as well. During the presidential campaigns, people were saying they don't believe in "redistribution" with regards to money (generally in context of taxes). Well, guess what? They do. Redistribution is basically just moving money around from one entity to another. What is the biggest provider of this? The economy. And currently, the money seems to be flowing from the bottom to the top overall. The percentage of the finite money held at the top increases with each given year. Unfortunately, the people at the top seem to be falling victim to the "finite money" problem as well. If they hold all (or most) of the money, how can people continue to buy products and services? At some point, money has to move down in order for it to be able to move back up. What's the easiest way to redistribute that money downward? Well, you could use taxes and welfare/unemployment support. But, no one likes the government to interfere. Well, the only other way is to pay workers. If they are paid with a livable salary, then they won't need government assistance.
The current system promotes quantity over quality. The more you sell, the more you make. Quality products last longer, decreasing the need for replaces and, therefore, sales. It also happens with services. The more clients one employee can take care of, the fewer workers are needed, and the higher profits will be. This leads to poorer service. The big challenge of moving to a quality over quantity system is needed.
Much is made about jobs being lost overseas, but what about jobs lost due to technology? Assembly lines are now full of machinery that can provide more consistent results faster. Eventually, technology will take over foreign factory jobs as it becomes increasingly cheaper to buy.
Another problem that compounds this is the growing population and overall increase in education. It's basically supply and demand. The supply of (hopefully) qualified workers continues to grow. This means the demand weakens and companies can get away with giving lower salaries. "You want more money? I'll hire this other guy instead." The supply and demand concept is fine for products, but when you're dealing with people and their livelihoods, it's probably not the best thing. Ask the overseas assembly line workers. Even with older workers retiring, the younger generation is larger and could fill those positions and then some. Retirement is also being delayed as general health and lifespans increase.
In short, an economy based on "infinites" located on a finite world is not sustainable. With an ever expanding population, jobs will continue to be at a shortage since workers are retiring later and manual labor is being replaced by technology. A growing and more education population should be expected to lead to lower wages as supply exceeds demand. Lower wages means that more money is being kept at the top and not moving back down to keep the cycle going.
By reducing working hours, you are forcing companies to hire more people and create more jobs (assuming they didn't just increase workloads further). By keeping (or making) wages high enough to cover living expenses, you don't have as many people dependent on government assistance. If this were coupled with an increased effort for quality over quantity, you could also open more jobs to reduce workloads. There's a side effect that could come with this as well. If people are able to focus more on each task, they can do a better job. If they don't have to spend as much time at work, maybe they'll focus better and be more productive. By reducing hours, you could hopefully reduce some of the "idle" time that people spend at work.
Health:
Decreasing the pressure on workers would go a long way towards better general health. I'm a strong believer that mental and physical health are closely tied together. It seems like the most common complaint people have these days is a lack of time. By reducing working hours, you give people more time to spend with family and on other activities. Want parents to be more involved with their kids' education? Give them a few extra hours at home. Want people to eat more healthily? Give them time to cook meals or grow gardens. Those who wanted a better job would also have a better chance at obtaining the education/training required. More people could have a chance to get up and be active rather than spending countless hours at a desk and then being to tired to move when they get home. People would likely be happier overall (except workaholics, but they could keep working anyway) since they'd have more time to spend on hobbies and on things that they enjoy. Happier people are generally going to have better physical health as well.
Environment:
This one is the most likely to see more negative effects than positive. Of course, you could get more people into gardening and growing their own food. On the downside, you'd likely end up with more traffic unless public transport increases. However, this shouldn't be too expensive for a government that spends less on welfare and health, right? You could also end up with more people traveling around in general. If you get rid of the quantity over quality mindset, there could be less production and better resource management. Ideally, the economy would move to a more service based system at some point anyway. By giving more people the ability to go out and explore the world, you could help make them more conscience of the world around them. This could help conservation efforts.
War/conflict:
Well, people are probably less likely to fight if they're happier. It seems to me that most people just want to provide for themselves and their families and spend the rest of their time doing what they enjoy. With decreased natural resource demands, you would have less conflict over those areas. Better land management could help, but that's not exactly a direct result of lowering working hours. Mostly, the major thing that would help this is tolerance and decreased populations. As much as I'd like it to, I don't think this one's going away any time soon unfortunately. :(
Of course, there are ways that this could all backfire and make the entire situation worse. Regardless, it's an interesting thought to consider.
Well here it is, the solution to all of our troubles: Decrease weekly working hours while keeping yearly salaries the same.
How does this solve our problems, you ask? While it may sound great to those who don't want to work as much, I'm sure others will quickly think of lots of problems with this plan. The following is my reasoning of how it would help.
(PS: I did no research/number-crunching for this. It is merely an interesting thought meant as a discussion point.)
Economy:
All of the current "fixes" for the economy will not truly fix it. They might help it in the short-term, but something drastic needs to happen for the long-term. The current economy is built on the premise of infinite production and infinite growth. Last I checked, we live on a finite planet with finite resources. Even if recycling and reuse efforts were increased, not everything fits into these categories. At any given point in time (i.e. ignoring inflation), there is a finite amount of money as well. During the presidential campaigns, people were saying they don't believe in "redistribution" with regards to money (generally in context of taxes). Well, guess what? They do. Redistribution is basically just moving money around from one entity to another. What is the biggest provider of this? The economy. And currently, the money seems to be flowing from the bottom to the top overall. The percentage of the finite money held at the top increases with each given year. Unfortunately, the people at the top seem to be falling victim to the "finite money" problem as well. If they hold all (or most) of the money, how can people continue to buy products and services? At some point, money has to move down in order for it to be able to move back up. What's the easiest way to redistribute that money downward? Well, you could use taxes and welfare/unemployment support. But, no one likes the government to interfere. Well, the only other way is to pay workers. If they are paid with a livable salary, then they won't need government assistance.
The current system promotes quantity over quality. The more you sell, the more you make. Quality products last longer, decreasing the need for replaces and, therefore, sales. It also happens with services. The more clients one employee can take care of, the fewer workers are needed, and the higher profits will be. This leads to poorer service. The big challenge of moving to a quality over quantity system is needed.
Much is made about jobs being lost overseas, but what about jobs lost due to technology? Assembly lines are now full of machinery that can provide more consistent results faster. Eventually, technology will take over foreign factory jobs as it becomes increasingly cheaper to buy.
Another problem that compounds this is the growing population and overall increase in education. It's basically supply and demand. The supply of (hopefully) qualified workers continues to grow. This means the demand weakens and companies can get away with giving lower salaries. "You want more money? I'll hire this other guy instead." The supply and demand concept is fine for products, but when you're dealing with people and their livelihoods, it's probably not the best thing. Ask the overseas assembly line workers. Even with older workers retiring, the younger generation is larger and could fill those positions and then some. Retirement is also being delayed as general health and lifespans increase.
In short, an economy based on "infinites" located on a finite world is not sustainable. With an ever expanding population, jobs will continue to be at a shortage since workers are retiring later and manual labor is being replaced by technology. A growing and more education population should be expected to lead to lower wages as supply exceeds demand. Lower wages means that more money is being kept at the top and not moving back down to keep the cycle going.
By reducing working hours, you are forcing companies to hire more people and create more jobs (assuming they didn't just increase workloads further). By keeping (or making) wages high enough to cover living expenses, you don't have as many people dependent on government assistance. If this were coupled with an increased effort for quality over quantity, you could also open more jobs to reduce workloads. There's a side effect that could come with this as well. If people are able to focus more on each task, they can do a better job. If they don't have to spend as much time at work, maybe they'll focus better and be more productive. By reducing hours, you could hopefully reduce some of the "idle" time that people spend at work.
Health:
Decreasing the pressure on workers would go a long way towards better general health. I'm a strong believer that mental and physical health are closely tied together. It seems like the most common complaint people have these days is a lack of time. By reducing working hours, you give people more time to spend with family and on other activities. Want parents to be more involved with their kids' education? Give them a few extra hours at home. Want people to eat more healthily? Give them time to cook meals or grow gardens. Those who wanted a better job would also have a better chance at obtaining the education/training required. More people could have a chance to get up and be active rather than spending countless hours at a desk and then being to tired to move when they get home. People would likely be happier overall (except workaholics, but they could keep working anyway) since they'd have more time to spend on hobbies and on things that they enjoy. Happier people are generally going to have better physical health as well.
Environment:
This one is the most likely to see more negative effects than positive. Of course, you could get more people into gardening and growing their own food. On the downside, you'd likely end up with more traffic unless public transport increases. However, this shouldn't be too expensive for a government that spends less on welfare and health, right? You could also end up with more people traveling around in general. If you get rid of the quantity over quality mindset, there could be less production and better resource management. Ideally, the economy would move to a more service based system at some point anyway. By giving more people the ability to go out and explore the world, you could help make them more conscience of the world around them. This could help conservation efforts.
War/conflict:
Well, people are probably less likely to fight if they're happier. It seems to me that most people just want to provide for themselves and their families and spend the rest of their time doing what they enjoy. With decreased natural resource demands, you would have less conflict over those areas. Better land management could help, but that's not exactly a direct result of lowering working hours. Mostly, the major thing that would help this is tolerance and decreased populations. As much as I'd like it to, I don't think this one's going away any time soon unfortunately. :(
Of course, there are ways that this could all backfire and make the entire situation worse. Regardless, it's an interesting thought to consider.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
On Life and Death
It is something that is often overlooked but in a moment can be gone forever. Every living thing needs it, and every living thing only has one. For something that is so common, it is also very special and a precious thing to behold. It might be the greatest, most spectacular thing in this universe, or any for that matter. It is life.
Yet, life inevitably brings death which may be the worst thing in the universe to at least some people. However, it is also necessary because without death, life would not be possible. When one being dies, another can live. We like to call this the "circle of life" even if it's not necessarily a circle. Life depends on death to continue and death can only happen when there is life.
With all of the death in the world these days, it sometimes seems that we are immune. It always happens to someone else, someone distant, with little effect on our own lives. But when it hits closer to home, you feel it even if you are not directly affected. These moments are the ones that make you realize just how special and fleeting life can be and how suddenly death can find itself at your door.
As we sit mourning those who are lost, we cannot forget how to live. We cannot forget that the sun will keep rising and our clocks will keep ticking. And while we should never forgot those who are gone, we also must accept that the world will continue on just fine without them.
Whereas it may seem that such lives are gone forever, the truth of the matter is that a part of them live on within your mind, heart, and soul. You will never find those whom you have never known within yourself, but those that you have will always be there. Every person that you can put a face to has left a mark on your very being itself. To find someone who is physically gone, all that you must do is turn and look inside yourself to find him. Studies can show that your friends affect your behavior, but you don't need a study to know yourself and see how you change throughout the years based upon those who have left a mark on you. And if you ever have a longing to see that person again, just look at the part of himself that he left inside of you.
Yet, life inevitably brings death which may be the worst thing in the universe to at least some people. However, it is also necessary because without death, life would not be possible. When one being dies, another can live. We like to call this the "circle of life" even if it's not necessarily a circle. Life depends on death to continue and death can only happen when there is life.
With all of the death in the world these days, it sometimes seems that we are immune. It always happens to someone else, someone distant, with little effect on our own lives. But when it hits closer to home, you feel it even if you are not directly affected. These moments are the ones that make you realize just how special and fleeting life can be and how suddenly death can find itself at your door.
As we sit mourning those who are lost, we cannot forget how to live. We cannot forget that the sun will keep rising and our clocks will keep ticking. And while we should never forgot those who are gone, we also must accept that the world will continue on just fine without them.
Whereas it may seem that such lives are gone forever, the truth of the matter is that a part of them live on within your mind, heart, and soul. You will never find those whom you have never known within yourself, but those that you have will always be there. Every person that you can put a face to has left a mark on your very being itself. To find someone who is physically gone, all that you must do is turn and look inside yourself to find him. Studies can show that your friends affect your behavior, but you don't need a study to know yourself and see how you change throughout the years based upon those who have left a mark on you. And if you ever have a longing to see that person again, just look at the part of himself that he left inside of you.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Rant 1: On Society and Education
Sometimes it blows my mind as to what people are capable of to the point that I more or less lose all faith that I have in humanity. Maybe I should stop reading the news; that could help since the biggest news also tends to involve some of humanity's stupider ideas. However, I would still have to interact with people, and I know the implications of trying to give that up. No, I would rather stay involved with the world and its happenings than go back to complete ignorance of it. This lack of belief in the world is probably best summed up by a little ditty that I came up with on one rainy day:
"Oh humanity, can't you see
God is crying down on thee.
To death you sail, for surely you'll fail
When comes the time to end this tale."
There are many good things hidden as bad, such as the uprisings in the Middle East. People (both civilians and not) are dying, but at the same time, it is because the people as a group decided to stand up for their rights. This is a positive. On the other hand, you have wars due to things such as arguing over religion or trying to force certain ideas and ways of living onto others who sometimes show that they clearly don't really want them.
Then there is the education system. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but America needs to get its act together. As someone who has been a teaching assistant and sometimes tutor for the past 3 years, I have seen students who I don't understand how they could have passed high school let alone scored high enough on standardized tests to make it into college. Maybe its just that I teach math and physics to students who aren't interested in it. I'm sure many of them are very good at their major subject but that's no excuse to not be able to do some of the most basic calculations. I should not have to have a university student that has to use their fingers to figure out 10+7 if I won't let them use a calculator. The same goes for those students who feel it necessary to multiply numbers by one or zero on their calculator. Now I know that there are people out there who struggle with numbers, and for more complex calculations I can understand using a calculator. But, seriously people, we need to pull ourselves together. Yet, it seems that everyday people are wondering why the world (or specifically the US) is in such a financial crisis. Maybe it's because the young population has no idea what numbers mean or how to do simple calculations.
Another thing that gets to me is the terrible spelling and grammar of the general public and even sometimes reporters and journalists. Yes, there will be typos and occasional mistakes, and I know that no one will be perfect with those things. Some of the rules that come in to play in "proper" grammar aren't really used, so I have no problem with people using those. It's more things such as mixing up "two" and "to" or using apostrophes to indicate the plural of a word as in "the dog's". More often than not I hear people just give the excuse of "Well, I've never been good at spelling/grammar. It's not really going to make any difference." Well to people like me at least, when half of the words in your writing are spelled incorrectly and I can hardly read it due to the terrible use a grammar, it does make a difference. And it's a huge difference. If I'm looking for an employee, I'd much rather have one who tries to be professional and cares enough to make their writing look good as opposed to one who seems to have quickly scraped together a barely readable paragraph that makes them look completely ignorant.
It seems to me that many problems come down to a few simple things: logic, reason, and the ability to think. With those three things, you can overcome many inabilities that you may naturally have. These are the things necessary for problem solving and most circumstances in life involve some sort of problem solving. However as important as they are, I don't feel like kids are ever taught these things. It's really a shame. This seems to be the biggest problem with the students that I have in intro physics. They are not very good at pulling relevant information from problems or being able to sort through it to figure out how to apply what they know about physics to solve the problem. It is basically an attempt to grab equations that might be relevant and hope that they are right. More often than not, the student has some idea of what they should be doing, but they struggle to see the patterns between similar questions if those questions are worded even slightly different. I have heard of professors doing an example for students and putting the same question on their homework, only changing the numbers, and the students struggle to solve it.
Too much of school, especially high school level, involves memorization. Sadly, schools these days are "teaching to the test" rather than teaching students how to think. This is why I believe students struggle so much in math, physics, and other subjects which rely heavily on problem solving rather than memorization. It's not until college that they are asked to do these things, and then they struggle to learn them. This is frustrating, especially to a student who is used to doing well in school. It is much harder to teach basic thinking skills to a college-aged student than it is to just start teaching and working on those skills as a child grows up. If we as a society want to continue to progress, then we did to give our kids the tools necessary to do so. This means teaching them how to use logic and reason and how to think things through and use their creativity to solve problems.
Maybe a world of people who are better able to think and to look at things a bit objectively, at least sometimes, would be a better place. Maybe it wouldn't be any different because these things won't eliminate the other problems that people face, that of greed and power. I don't know that we will ever be able to rid ourselves of those things. Partly, it is ingrained in our minds because, to some extent, those things are (or were) necessary for survival. And partly, there will probably remain people who allow those things to take control of their thoughts. This is also true because we need people like this to help keep things running; however, it is a fine balance because those who let power and greed get the best of them due more harm than good. It is often said that "those who are best suited to power never seek it." This is true because, in the sense "power" is used here, those who are best suited are those who will not let it go to their head, but those are the people who do not want it in the first place.
And so it is that society will continue to be its own worst enemy. We'll continue to fight ourselves because there aren't enough people who are willing to sit and think things through and then put themselves in a position to really make a difference. I could go on and on about the pitfalls of society, but I believe that I've written enough for tonight.
"Oh humanity, can't you see
God is crying down on thee.
To death you sail, for surely you'll fail
When comes the time to end this tale."
There are many good things hidden as bad, such as the uprisings in the Middle East. People (both civilians and not) are dying, but at the same time, it is because the people as a group decided to stand up for their rights. This is a positive. On the other hand, you have wars due to things such as arguing over religion or trying to force certain ideas and ways of living onto others who sometimes show that they clearly don't really want them.
Then there is the education system. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but America needs to get its act together. As someone who has been a teaching assistant and sometimes tutor for the past 3 years, I have seen students who I don't understand how they could have passed high school let alone scored high enough on standardized tests to make it into college. Maybe its just that I teach math and physics to students who aren't interested in it. I'm sure many of them are very good at their major subject but that's no excuse to not be able to do some of the most basic calculations. I should not have to have a university student that has to use their fingers to figure out 10+7 if I won't let them use a calculator. The same goes for those students who feel it necessary to multiply numbers by one or zero on their calculator. Now I know that there are people out there who struggle with numbers, and for more complex calculations I can understand using a calculator. But, seriously people, we need to pull ourselves together. Yet, it seems that everyday people are wondering why the world (or specifically the US) is in such a financial crisis. Maybe it's because the young population has no idea what numbers mean or how to do simple calculations.
Another thing that gets to me is the terrible spelling and grammar of the general public and even sometimes reporters and journalists. Yes, there will be typos and occasional mistakes, and I know that no one will be perfect with those things. Some of the rules that come in to play in "proper" grammar aren't really used, so I have no problem with people using those. It's more things such as mixing up "two" and "to" or using apostrophes to indicate the plural of a word as in "the dog's". More often than not I hear people just give the excuse of "Well, I've never been good at spelling/grammar. It's not really going to make any difference." Well to people like me at least, when half of the words in your writing are spelled incorrectly and I can hardly read it due to the terrible use a grammar, it does make a difference. And it's a huge difference. If I'm looking for an employee, I'd much rather have one who tries to be professional and cares enough to make their writing look good as opposed to one who seems to have quickly scraped together a barely readable paragraph that makes them look completely ignorant.
It seems to me that many problems come down to a few simple things: logic, reason, and the ability to think. With those three things, you can overcome many inabilities that you may naturally have. These are the things necessary for problem solving and most circumstances in life involve some sort of problem solving. However as important as they are, I don't feel like kids are ever taught these things. It's really a shame. This seems to be the biggest problem with the students that I have in intro physics. They are not very good at pulling relevant information from problems or being able to sort through it to figure out how to apply what they know about physics to solve the problem. It is basically an attempt to grab equations that might be relevant and hope that they are right. More often than not, the student has some idea of what they should be doing, but they struggle to see the patterns between similar questions if those questions are worded even slightly different. I have heard of professors doing an example for students and putting the same question on their homework, only changing the numbers, and the students struggle to solve it.
Too much of school, especially high school level, involves memorization. Sadly, schools these days are "teaching to the test" rather than teaching students how to think. This is why I believe students struggle so much in math, physics, and other subjects which rely heavily on problem solving rather than memorization. It's not until college that they are asked to do these things, and then they struggle to learn them. This is frustrating, especially to a student who is used to doing well in school. It is much harder to teach basic thinking skills to a college-aged student than it is to just start teaching and working on those skills as a child grows up. If we as a society want to continue to progress, then we did to give our kids the tools necessary to do so. This means teaching them how to use logic and reason and how to think things through and use their creativity to solve problems.
Maybe a world of people who are better able to think and to look at things a bit objectively, at least sometimes, would be a better place. Maybe it wouldn't be any different because these things won't eliminate the other problems that people face, that of greed and power. I don't know that we will ever be able to rid ourselves of those things. Partly, it is ingrained in our minds because, to some extent, those things are (or were) necessary for survival. And partly, there will probably remain people who allow those things to take control of their thoughts. This is also true because we need people like this to help keep things running; however, it is a fine balance because those who let power and greed get the best of them due more harm than good. It is often said that "those who are best suited to power never seek it." This is true because, in the sense "power" is used here, those who are best suited are those who will not let it go to their head, but those are the people who do not want it in the first place.
And so it is that society will continue to be its own worst enemy. We'll continue to fight ourselves because there aren't enough people who are willing to sit and think things through and then put themselves in a position to really make a difference. I could go on and on about the pitfalls of society, but I believe that I've written enough for tonight.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Importance of Thinking
It seems these days that with all of the rushing and scheduling people do in their lives that they often leave out an important thing: time to sit and think and reflect. If more people would just take the time to sit back and think things through, then the world could be a better place.
It may be that there are not many people who actually understand how to really think. Just like many things, thinking is an art; it takes practice to get good at it. Sadly, it seems that fewer and fewer people are actually learning how to do so properly. It sometimes astounds me as to how poorly people can be at problem solving. It's not that they don't try; it's just that they're missing Therefore, it's becoming a lost art. some understanding of how to go about thinking and reasoning. In this world of schedules and speed, most people are losing the time to spend practicing this important art or passing it on to others.
It has practically become a personal mission of mine to fix this problem. It might be annoying that I don't give a straight up answer most of the time, but it's for your own good. Since few people will take the time themselves to boost their thinking skills, I feel that the least I can do is help them out by making them use their brains. Which by the way, the brain is a very important and powerful thing. More so than most people probably believe, in my opinion. And like any muscle, the more you use it the stronger it will become.
So, set aside a few minutes each day to work on your thinking skills. Try solving problems or questions that are different from those that you would normally face. In the end, you may find out just exactly how powerful your brain is and prove to yourself that you actually are capable of more than you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)