People Can Develop Technology Without Understanding
Did the original myths of the people – bows and arrows, houses, kayaks – come from the inner smarts that evoke awareness, gossip, lions and other species? Or did the age-old stuff evolve from a gradual, gradual change in the countless generations that make up the passing of all cultures? Such shared information may not be required for any individual to understand the physiological processes of the body.
In education, these different issues occur in two ways. Proponents of the concept of “artificial intelligence” assume that human creativity and the understanding of what constitutes a relationship are what enable them to develop technologies to adapt to the environment and natural environment. On the opposition side, the “metal culture” club claims that even ancient art such as the bow and arrow was a masterpiece, the way it was made for everyone’s art, even the Bronze Age Einstein.
How does this conflict end? One way to solve this problem is to try and try to sell technology for several generations. The young French scientist, Maxime Derex, thought this through, creating a powerful culture to help in doing this.
In this study, Derex and a colleague documented “several generations” – a graduate student at a French university. Each participant was tested five times to create a powerful wheelchair under a meter-wide circle by changing the weight space of four feet. The electronic structure of the last two tests was recorded in a video and presented to the next generation in a group of five students. Fourteen such chains participated in the first phase of the experiment.
Adjusting the dimensions allows the students to control both sides of the wheel and the center of the crowd. It wasn’t as easy as it looked. “If you think you have a problem with this work, consider it, even if engineering or engineering students did not find it to be a good idea,” said Rachel L. Kendal of Durham University in England in the comments published along with research in the May issue of Human Nature.
The results showed that the speed of the wheels increased as each group of students passed through five generations. Average rises from 123.6 meters per hour in the first generation to 145.7 meters per hour. (Top speed was 154 meters per hour.)
The researchers conducted an educational test whose evolution was very successful. At the end of the turn, the participant would leave any tires attached to different tires with different rotations – and was asked to predict what would be the fastest distance. Although they struggled each time, the students did not show why the change helped. Derex, who is now a technology specialist at the Institute of Advanced Study in Toulouse, France, also affiliated with the French National Center for Information Science (CNRS), said: Although the experiment was repeated with 14 other chains, while, at the time, the first four students were asked to write a theory that is radically transformed before it can reach the next generation – the ones who found the puzzles were unable to use the information to guide their understanding.
This study is often welcomed. Kevin N. Laland, professor of molecular biology at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, who did not participate in the research, praised Derex and their colleagues as “a great team of scientists, who are always doing excellent work.” Laland, an ally of former editor, Alex Mesoudi of the University of Exeter in England, agreed with their findings. “People tend to do less important things, they don’t understand why their traditions and beliefs work, and they often make inaccurate and scientific explanations for what they do,” he says.
Olivier Morin, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, who did not participate in the research, said he was “extremely intelligent and innocent.” But he added that the findings do not contradict the popular notion that – in his view, it does not support the principles of anti-traditionalism. “Just because our understanding of technology doesn’t just exist does not mean it doesn’t exist,” he says. “Students don’t just make a sudden decision to create useless skills.” For example, Mr Morin points to the students studying the wheels by avoiding adjusting the dimensions in ways that reduce speed and speed.
Derex and his colleague do not deny that racial ideology plays a particular role — and that cultural and cultural expression can coexist. But Robert Boyd, a paper author and Derex’s second adviser to Arizona State University from 2014 to 2017, thinks that, everywhere, evidence is rooted in culture. They count to try did it with Derex in 2015 which also stated that as technical skills increase in complexity, distance learning is more than just the job developer. Previous research, done on a computer, requires students to make informed pricing. To do this, they had to perform high-level tasks such as building blocks that produced other weapons. “This test clearly shows that the harder you work on the task, the more difficult your behavior will be if you compare people who have answers and those who don’t,” says Boyd.
The study of the wheel presents some drawbacks. In future experiments, Derex wants to explore a concept that has emerged from observing how information is transmitted across generations: Manufacturers who gave a slightly more precise idea to their co-workers (steering wheel of inertia but not between masses, for example) improved their operating system – but improved there it prevented some ideas about the positive repercussions that could be obtained by switching between masses and. “They have a slightly correct answer,” says Derex. The result raises the question of whether, in some cases, the training itself may be worthless because it creates future awareness.