Very good point. And if a theory is inaccurate, the only thing we can accurately say about it is that it's inaccurate. We can't say that it's not useful.
Richard Brodie email@example.com
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme" Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of the great tinkerer
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: virus: levels only two
im 14, and i think the level system is entirely bunk (am i young enough to be considered for the hypothetical level 3 hehehe). rating systems are, in general, always going to rate something incorrectly (all generalizations are inheritly false though) if we rated the students in my school by their grades to determine who was the smartest, wed fail to acknowledge that: some teachers grade harder than others, some students are lazy and do not do any work but still get perfects on every test, and some students struggle to get A's and achieve them by putting a painstaking amount of work in... not a good way to find out who's smartest... the only thing you can discover by ranking people, is where you ranked them. (the only thing you can say about men with big feet is that they have big feet, you cant acurately say that they wear large shoes!)
~the great tinkerer
>A few months back I expressed my views on the level debate. It was and
>is my assertion that as children we are at level three ( If three levels
>exist)and it is the process of aging that regresses us. Richard admitted
>that he saw my point. I believe that was how he put it. Be that as it may,
>have considered this line of thought further and believe I was wrong.
>Possibly if any levels can exist their are only two. I did a two and half
>hour interview the other day for a news paper. The main topic will be the
>web site. The editor and I discussed this idea of levels and how what I
>present allows people to access the thought processes that they used as
>children. And the value of such research and entertainment. The fellow took
>allot of notes and I saw his eyes well up a couple of times as I ran my
>psychological dog and pony show past him. ( This is the typical response
>when I discuss this with people especially when they have children) I do
>this intentionally to elicit the response. It is the response of sorrow of
>having lost what is most precious and the possibility that what was lost
>be easily found.