Referring to the contributions of At de Lange; I took his most recent
principle contribution LO22426 to hook on.
Dear LO'ers, dear At,
Let me first compliment you with this beautifully clear contribution,
Efficiency and emergence LO 22426. It is so well constructed, the order is
so high; it should have taken you lot of free energy!
And this is the target of my question. In the past, you have several times
mentioned that things that grow slowly, will have the highest degree of
order and the highest amount of potential free energy stored. The very
slowly grown tree has much more energy stored (that might comes released
after combustion), than the fast grown trees. If we jump from the
material world to the world of the mind, is there a parallel? Does the
slow learner have more potential than the fast learner? Do we need in our
organizations the people who have spend 25 years on several levels of
education, or is it better to attract the people who 'finished' their
formal education in less than 20 years (the 'smart' guys).
This seems a simple question with a simple answer: NO. However, I am
curious where the balance lies: when does education becomes too long, and
where is it too short? I realise that part of the answer lies in the
quality of the education. But maybe we can for simplicity think of an
ideal situation: two similar persons, one 18 years of education, the other
25 years of education; the educated subjects and schools are similar as
well. Who is the best?
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>