voltooid

I see a lot of comments asking what a fear of learning something new is. I interpret is as the fear of appearing stupid when trying to learn something new. This means, that one doesn't ask questions, doesn't take big steps in the presence of other people, the fear of failing at this new learning experience. The fear of appearing incompetent at something that one "should" already know.

I am an engineer and I particularly relate to the problem that the doctor has with having to click multiple times to order medical tests where previously only one sufficed. Also, the problem of multiple links named with very similar, thus confusing names - "chart review", "result review" etc.

I see this on a regular basis when using visual studio team services so much so that our team spends a large amount of our time dealing with the VSTS interface instead of making use of the system to do our planning quickly and efficiently. I deal with a computer all day every day and I don't find VSTS the least bit intuitive or helpful. The problem described in the article is not one that just doctors have to face.

> Why should an architect know Shakespeare and QWERTY?

Well why not? QWERTY could refer to just being able to type. An artist could possibly do well to be able to use a computer? It could also refer to the placement on old style typewriters where the type bars could get jammed if letters used often in the English language were typed in quick succession. (Myth maybe? But interesting to think about anyway for someone that is going to design things for other people to use.)

As to Shakespeare, it has been suggested that people that read fiction/literature of this sort develop empathy and makes you a "better" person.

I remember reading about baby name fads that were caused by names of TV characters. The one I remember is "Emma" catching on after the baby on the TV show Friends.

Your comment is very interesting. I recently took a course on Design Patterns. I sat squirming during the lectures because I didn't like what was being said, but couldn't put my finger on what exactly I disliked.

What I understand from your comment is that you dislike the Gang of four book because it renames concepts that don't need the cutesy names that they give them. Do you have a problem with the _concept_ of design patterns? Or just the names they are given? Are the concepts themselves sound and worth paying attention to?

>> Not that of some long gone boogeyman.

Since the boogeyman has been "gone", the entire region (not just India) has gone through several wars, a very messy, violent and tumultuous process of nation building. The region is not even used to existing as one nation yet. It takes time. Not making excuses for slow progress. Just trying to make the point that there isn't a magic wand to make everything all nice and shiny. It takes time. And as we see from this supreme court ruling, the intention is good and it is there.

You make a good point.

It is simplistic and lazy to blame the colonials for all the ills of a society too. But the slow progress in fixing something like this is not so much because of a backwards attitude. Nation building takes time. Especially when things around the world are changing fast. There is a long long way to go. And it is definitely going to take a very long time getting there. Especially because there are way too many issues that need the attention of an already strained legal system.

Have they also taken away your stapler?

That's the thing about being a rebel in a hierarchical system. You really are up against much more than a "rebel" in say the U.S. would be up against. For example, think of the adoration that American people seem to have for people that do things off the beaten path. Being ordinary is to be avoided at all costs in the U.S.

In a place like India, you are taught to conform. A hierarchy is enforced. No deviation is tolerated. (Sorry to use such dramatic language. But there is no other way to describe this system.) You don't get to do anything outside of arbitrary norms that others have drawn for you. This is too much for young and curious minds that may want to do things even a slight bit differently. The path of least resistance is to just lie down and submit to rote learning or whatever other evil the system imposes on you.

What do you mean by a colonial system? edited to add: I ask the question because I genuinely don't understand what you mean by it in this context. It seems to me that it might mean some sort of system that the British introduced in India that was then adopted by the Indians after Independence. But I could be missing the nuances in your argument.

Respectfully, it seems to me that India (and other countries in the region and maybe elsewhere) has a problem with strictly hierarchical structure, issues with accessibility and availability of resources. There is no investment in improving training for teachers. Typically, people that don't find jobs anywhere else take up teaching. Teaching is also typically a high-stress, low-paid job. It seems to have not a lot to do with language. There are more factors here.

Yes the Germans are able to get ahead cause of the use of both German and English. But it seems like lazy reasoning to suggest that this is solely the reason why they do better. How about looking into what else their education system does that is possibly absent in the Indian system? How about comparing the structure, the resource usage, the training for educators and managers in education and research? Surely, language is not the only difference between the two systems?