Re: Hole in the wall... looking at other issues

[email protected] Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:22:41 EST

Newsgroups	gmane.culture.publications.bytesforall.readers
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

--part1_8c.204ff27f.2aedb321_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

its good to debate these issues. i am all for sugata carrying out his
intellectual quest and doing what he is doing. i am all for sugata proving
these points. he is blessed with the talent to carry out such studies and we
must pay attention to such studies.a

however, point is made- that kids in 6 to 13 age group can learn to navigate
a compter without anyone's help. but if kids from 2 or 3 onwards can do it
without manual because they could not read anyway, what is the gain in
proving that point. we presume if something can be done by grade 1 students,
grade 3 students can do that anyway. if not there may be other issues
involved.

i am also sensitive to it because it sounds a little racist to me that what
the kids in industrial world can do at age 3 the kids in slums can do at 6 to
13. I have found some of the children who beg on the streets of delhi
extraordinarily intelligent in several cases but with a lack of opportunities
they may not achieve their potential. but does that need to be proved.
intelligence is almost evenly distributed across all societies. it is its
application, the learning curve that we are on, the experiences we have, the
culture we live in may shape many of our preferences.

i am a child of deprivation myself and after getting an opportunity to go to
school i went to harvard, fletcher, and half a dozen schools in the western
world. i perhaps was the youngest editor and heda of a newsweekly in the
national press in india at under 30 years. but if someone carried out an
experiment saying that a child of deprivation could become the editor of the
times of india group at under 30 therefore......... will that prove anything?

where i have an issue is in turning that into a model that will route funds
into a direction that may not be necessary. that is expensive. or not
cost-effective. each point has its purpose and helps us move forward as a
society. but i have an issue when it directs resources in a direction that
may require greater scrutiny. even more so when the resiurces are public.

i get upset when someone like the ceo of globalvision - at the strength of
the argument provided by one of our own colleagues- comes and tells me in an
email that 15 year old indian kids could be less intelligent than 3 year old
american kids. when i know well that his asosciate is a child adopted from
bihar and brought up in italy and now has an italian name. for me he is proof
enough that we do not need to prove these points anymore. there was a
hollywood film with dan arkroyd and eddie murphy- for one dollar or
something- where the point was proved for masses. i thought that should have
closed the issue. the point is about how we can better use of technology not
about they can also learn it and the others can also learn it

i am more than happy having other inputs and try to see other perspectives as
well. but the impressions created and perceptions developed will last longer
than any intellectual clarifications some of us may be able to achieve.

thanks much

--part1_8c.204ff27f.2aedb321_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>its good to debate these issues. i am all for sugata carrying out his intellectual quest and doing what he is doing.&nbsp; i am all for sugata proving these points. he is blessed with the talent to carry out such studies and we must pay attention to such studies.a 
 
however, point is made- that kids in 6 to 13 age group can learn to navigate a compter without anyone's help. but if kids from 2 or 3 onwards can do it without manual because they could not read anyway, what is the gain in proving that point. we presume if something can be done by grade 1 students, grade 3 students can do that anyway. if not there may be other issues involved. 
 
i am also sensitive to it because it sounds a little racist to me that what the kids in industrial world can do at age 3 the kids in slums can do at 6 to 13. I have found some of the children who beg on the streets of delhi extraordinarily intelligent in several cases but with a lack of opportunities they may not achieve their potential. but does that need to be proved. intelligence is almost evenly distributed across all societies. it is its application, the learning curve that we are on, the experiences we have, the culture we live in may shape many of our preferences. 
 
i am a child of deprivation myself and after getting an opportunity to go to school i went to harvard, fletcher, and half a dozen schools in the western world. i perhaps was the youngest editor and heda of a newsweekly in the national press in india at under 30 years. but if someone carried out an experiment saying that a child of deprivation could become the editor of the times of india group at under 30 therefore......... will that prove anything? 
 
where i have an issue is in turning that into a model that will route funds into a direction that may not be necessary. that is expensive. or not cost-effective. each point has its purpose and helps us move forward as a society. but i have an issue when it directs resources in a direction that may require greater scrutiny. even more so when the resiurces are public. 
 
i get upset when someone like the ceo of globalvision - at the strength of the argument provided by one of our own colleagues- comes and tells me in an email that 15 year old indian kids could be less intelligent than 3 year old american kids. when i know well that his asosciate is a child adopted from bihar and brought up in italy and now has an italian name. for me he is proof enough that we do not need to prove these points anymore. there was a hollywood film with dan arkroyd and eddie murphy- for one dollar or something- where the point was&nbsp; proved for masses. i thought that should have closed the issue. the point is about how we can better use of technology not about they can also learn it and the others can also learn it 
 
i am more than happy having other inputs and try to see other perspectives as well. but the impressions created and perceptions developed will last longer than any intellectual clarifications some of us may be able to achieve. 
 
thanks much</HTML>

--part1_8c.204ff27f.2aedb321_boundary--