“No, it doesn’t take much intelligence to memorize things. With time, when you’ve heard the terms enough, you will remember them. What takes intelligence is to really understand, and that is what you do so well.”
Indeed. The business model doesn't allow for it, it seems--it takes much more time, with many more errors, to actually help students learn how to learn, to teach them how to model the world actively so that they can go out and use those tools on their own. And now, because we are several academic generations (at least) in to mostly training people to memorize rather than teaching them to observe and assess, most of the professors wouldn't have the capacity to really teach even if they did have the time.
I'm sad that Rosalie probably didn't become a biologist.
Regarding the male peacock: Someone did figure it out! The males with the fanciest tails may have the strongest immune systems. They're primo breeding material. I happen to have run across this paper some months ago: "Multiple sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks." (Loyau et al. 2005) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00265-005-0958-y
With regard to the Loyau et al paper, it's good, but it doesn't answer the question any better than many other good papers that have attempted to. It continues in the tradition of the (I think good) sexual selection theory that I was embedded in in my own research, albeit on Mantella rather than peacocks. Specifically, some of my experiments were designed to tease apart whether females were choosing based on the quality of a male's genes, his resource holdings, or his current condition. What the Loyau paper concludes is that more types of signals are going to be more reliable in transmitting information (which honestly seems fairly obvious), but we still don't know a) which signals came first, or b) what the females truly care about. The authors use the proxy of "low levels of circulating heterophils," which may be a good experimental choice, but it is, they acknowledge, merely suggestive of "better health status." Is that what females are choosing based on? Maybe. But also maybe not.
“No, it doesn’t take much intelligence to memorize things. With time, when you’ve heard the terms enough, you will remember them. What takes intelligence is to really understand, and that is what you do so well.”
If only our universities recognized this.
Indeed. The business model doesn't allow for it, it seems--it takes much more time, with many more errors, to actually help students learn how to learn, to teach them how to model the world actively so that they can go out and use those tools on their own. And now, because we are several academic generations (at least) in to mostly training people to memorize rather than teaching them to observe and assess, most of the professors wouldn't have the capacity to really teach even if they did have the time.
You've had some amazing adventures. May there be many more Rosalies.
I was so pleased to see this in my email. I have missed it.
I missed it as well!
Thank you both.
I'm sad that Rosalie probably didn't become a biologist.
Regarding the male peacock: Someone did figure it out! The males with the fanciest tails may have the strongest immune systems. They're primo breeding material. I happen to have run across this paper some months ago: "Multiple sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks." (Loyau et al. 2005) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00265-005-0958-y
I agree with you, with regard to Rosalie.
With regard to the Loyau et al paper, it's good, but it doesn't answer the question any better than many other good papers that have attempted to. It continues in the tradition of the (I think good) sexual selection theory that I was embedded in in my own research, albeit on Mantella rather than peacocks. Specifically, some of my experiments were designed to tease apart whether females were choosing based on the quality of a male's genes, his resource holdings, or his current condition. What the Loyau paper concludes is that more types of signals are going to be more reliable in transmitting information (which honestly seems fairly obvious), but we still don't know a) which signals came first, or b) what the females truly care about. The authors use the proxy of "low levels of circulating heterophils," which may be a good experimental choice, but it is, they acknowledge, merely suggestive of "better health status." Is that what females are choosing based on? Maybe. But also maybe not.
Thank you! (I'm so out of my depth on this one …)
I love this! My stepdad, who lived to be 95, wrote this and you have epitomized it:
"....tell me and I will forget, show me and I will remember, help me do it, and I will learn!"
Or did he epitomize you? (d. 2013)
So good, as usual. Thank you for brightening my day!
I spent most of university memorizing things when questioning is in my nature. I appreciate all the lessons you provide!