"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

I have an almost photographic memory. When I studied fot the
tests, I would take an on-line test. Any and all questions
that I got wron, I hit a book and figured out the correct
answer. I read it - usually once, and then I knew the answer.
Was I memorizing?

At some level, yes.

You either memorized the process/algorithm/information required to
properly process a question of the nature you missed (for example, a
resistance computation), or you simply word-associated/familiarized
yourself with the question pool enough that you recognized the correct
answer when you saw it.


It's both, depending on the need. I had quite a problem with ARRL's
code practice CD. Once through and I had (unfortunately) memorized the
CD. But not the code!!



In the first case, you engaged in the process which virtually all
people go thru to learn a new skill, etc. (certain base memories have
to be memorized, i.e. formulas, definitions, etc.) This isn't a bad
thing. It forms a basis from which you can then build upon the
knowledge.

In the second case, all you did is word-associate the answers, without
any real understanding of the theory behind the answer. This IMO is a
bad thing, and isn't what we should be promoting with our licensing
examinations.

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is not
all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look it up and
use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught dead without my
ARRL handbook.


I offered that challenge because I hear so much about rote
memory. Some of the curmudgeons are correct in that a person
who memorizes the pool is a lot dumber than a person who
learns it.

I can't say whether a person who word-associates the pools and manages
to get a license is more or less intelligent than someone who learns
the material

My application of the word dumb is in reference to doing it the hard way
instead of the way one should.



(i.e. someone with a photographic memory could also be
rated as a genius from an IQ perspective.) All I can say is that, IMO,
the type of person the ARS should be striving for is the person who
learns the underlying technical material to pass the examination.

I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I just
don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am, as some
hams do.

Disclaimer: I am pretty competent in matters of computers, digital
electronics, audio equipment, and their applications to video work. I'm
a bit lacking in RF, which is one of the reasons that I became a Ham.


But it doesn't have to. We have the options of putting out a
fair amoount of power, and to experiment, and work with
equipment of our oown design and manufacture, and to modify
that equipment as long as it stays within whatever legal
performance limits as apply.

I know very, very few people who build their own gear these days.
Probably the only thing I've seen someone build in the past 3 years is
a QRP transmitter and a dipole.

Yer' hangin' with the wrong crowd, Mike! Just kidding. But there is
actually quite a bit of experimenting going on.


That's what the testing is about. No one is required to make
use of all the priveliges.

No, but testing should ensure that the applicant actually *knows* the
material they are being tested on. The current structure of the theory
examination testing does not accomplish that.

It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to test
to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

What you speak of would almost require a large structured
apprentice program.

rest snipped..


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -