<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding engaging minorities in the workforce, I have heard this claim “It is important to have someone that looks like you and has similar shared experiences in the workplace.” Isn’t this just more tribalism, as it doesn’t actually
maximize diversity? If it is true, I imagine it has something to with scaffolding. This makes me wonder if scaffolding is really a good thing, or if it is an expected outcome of a struggle for power. The hypothesis is that you can’t really be you unless
you build your own scaffolding.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It also reminds me of the focus of some activists for marriage equality. Essentially, the “born this way” claim. It seems to take the short-term goal by way of an assertion rather than asking the more expansive question of why would
society would dare to have expectations about sexual preference in the first place?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>thompnickson2@gmail.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 26, 2021 4:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [FRIAM] Instructional scaffolding - Wikipedia<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_scaffolding#Theory_of_scaffolding">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_scaffolding#Theory_of_scaffolding</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Great meeting, today. Sorry I overslept. I promised last week to provide a definition of “scaffolding”, as in to “scaffold” learning, or some other frail or undetermined process, so as to facilitate its success. For me the clearest example of scaffolding
I know is what the surgical nurse does for the surgeon when she (sorry) lays out his tools in order on the tray beside him. It is also connected in my mind with a theory of how best to teach kids stuff. Your strategy should always be somewhere in the middle
ground between letting the kid figure it out for himself and just doing it for the kid. Scaffolding relates to the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, which is the “space” between the tasks which the kid can do expertly and the tasks the kid has no
idea how to do them. So, for instance, in playing a game which involves say, putting blocks into appropriately shaped windows, the mother may do it once her self, then not do it herself, but hold the block in the right order in her hand near the child, then
hold them in a scrambled order in her hand so the child has to select the order, and finally spill the blocks out and leave the child to find them himself. So at each stage she designs her support the child’s idea needs, withdrawing support as the child
becomes more capable. To me (and perhaps me, alone) the of scaffolding relates to the question of the origin of life debate because it contrasts with the idea of “self” organization, which I have never understood. Instead of imagining that chemicals just
lie about in cess pools until a miracle happens, the theory asserts that life was scaffolded by white smokers in the deep ocean. White smokers are volcanic vents in the deep ocean floor that are constantly emitting a flow of very hot water laden with solutes.
As the water cools it forms intricate structures with minute cavities which mimic, in some regards, the properties of cells. Thus the smokers (on this theory) scaffold life by making cell boundaries before there are cell walls to contain the somatoplasm .
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>All the Erics will correct me, but that is the best I can do with my ambulator knowledge.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Nick<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>