How to come up with 'new techniques.'

[Brett Nortje]

For a long time now, i have had a secret... i have been making progress for all of humanity! often, i come up with new techniques to solve old problems and provide answers to problem that other's never thought of or thought of as impossible to solve, of course. i have gotten quite used to this, but, now feel driven to provide a learning resource for those wishing to reconstruct their minds to do the same, yes?

The easiest way for me to do this is to be smug and say that you must do everything i have done, yes? but, i have filtered out the unnecessary red herrings, and, have 'trained' about thirty debaters to deliver answers on other forums. now i want to share this with everyone, if you give me a chance, what do you have to lose - maybe you will debate 'my lessons?'

So, first step... you must read and understand the points of others, to the point where you might actually agree with them, yes? i mean, if you were to read about some guy with a opinion, you might dismiss them automatically, yes? this is 'pride,' where you stick to your guns and then simply get to the problem of insults where you sink to to hammer your point home, yes?

Maybe the best way to approach debates for a while is to try to see it from the point of the other person, yes? understanding 'new ways of thinking,' with new 'key words' and 'focus areas,' especially new ideals ad goals, is surely the way forwards.

[Brett Nortje]

The next step is to argue with yourself. try this; enter into a discussion where you do not know anything, and, instead of trying to speak, as we are driven to do,just listen. i see there is a lot of that everywhere on the net, with guests coming and going, reading this or that, and, not feeling the need to speak. this makes us debaters the stars of our own show, yes?

Anyway, when arguing with yourself - listen to both sides of the argument or discussion and then take a side. before you begin 'imparting wisdom' you should try to argue your point over with yourself, to see where you really stand.

For example, i used to love democracy and the liberal way of life. this was very long ago, but i did. i was shouting for gay rights, where now i realize that two unmarried men living together is just shy of the paperwork, yes? then there were other things... everyone in 'the west' is crazy about anything with the prefix liberal, as it screams freedom, yes? this is because we want freedom from all the boredom we suffer from, where it is so easy to get nearly anything you need, all you really want is more, of course - i am sure the older people on this forum will agree with me?

So, consider the points of others, consider yourself less knowledgeable, why not - what do you have to lose by listening, and what do you have to lose by taking a hopeful jab once you think you know what is going on?

[Brett Nortje]

Familiarity with subjects can be restrictive - you might want to only engage in things you know something about, yes? what really interests you... robotics? that sounds cool - it is basically electrical engineering, in case you are wondering. how about nano science? this is mixing engineering with chemistry, of course. you build little machines out of chemicals in the body for medical purposes, doesn't sound so cool now, hey? how about economics? this is easy for everyone to understand, with many many different approaches to how to generate more money out of less money, of course.

So, what do you fancy? why not go read about it on the net? what do you have to lose? then, after getting some idea of what they are talking about, explain it to yourself like i do at the start of all my topics, explain it to yourself until it makes sense, and, then put it up for debate, this is the proper way to learn. problem is, you might be arguing with someone that actually doesn't know the beginning of the stuff you read and your understanding. this is the next logical step, isn't it?

Now, i believe that the world works in 'patterns of science' - this would mean that all fields work on the same principles. this means that an engineer can understand the reactive bodily working of a doctor, to a point, yes? this means that a lawyer understand politics, of course. of course, there are many mixing points, but there are some neglected areas in some cross overs.

[Brett Nortje]

Now, i want to speak about 'maths.' everyone can do arithmetic, everyone can do algebra, everyone can do calculus. this i promise you, by the end of this you should have a the foundations to approach these 'topics.'

Everything in maths has 'patterns.' where there is a three hundred and sixty degree circle and you have observed sixty of those degrees, there is three hundred left, yes? when you need to work out your angles, you just need to observe that when asked for a value for the angles, or, a ratio, you need only supply the amounts that are missing in the whole circle or triangle that the sum 'minuses,' yes? so, you would add up the sum, instead of dividing it and stuff, and, remove those amounts from the rest of the circle or triangle. every time there is a minus, take it away from 360, every time there is a plus, you add it to the 360 degrees, divide is minus to the value at the bottom, and multiply is a addition to the value at the top of these sums within sums, the quadratics, or, sums inside with a line separating them.

[stjames1_53]

take a hike. Most of have been where you claimed to have been , and we didn't turn out to be smug and condescending. You've still have the smug alt-left wing mentality. You do not come in here and lecture US about arguing with you. You tend to make the simplest thing a convoluted knot.
simplicity works best

[Brett Nortje]

take a hike. Most of have been where you claimed to have been , and we didn't turn out to be smug and condescending. You've still have the smug alt-left wing mentality. You do not come in here and lecture US about arguing with you. You tend to make the simplest thing a convoluted knot.
simplicity works best

It is not a lecture of how to argue with me, it is a lesson for those that aspire to debate, from the start. i will continue.

[Brett Nortje]

So, you might be thinking this is very well and good, you have learned a great deal and now you understand much, yes? if you were to now think to yourself where the 'progress' is going to come from, or what your own techniques will be, then you would be going in the right direction, of course.

Coming up with the stuff dreams are made of is simplest done by reading 'the little questions' in the wikipedia where they tell you 'what is being worked on.' these as the areas you should try your best at, as, if you can bring your knowledge of how the field works to bear, you have a better chance of answering these questions than they do, because you can approach it without having a "grant" in mind.

These grants of theirs go into the researching of the questions or techniques needed to 'answer the question.' this is where you are approaching it with a broader spectrum, being versed in many basics of fields, and, they often relate. if you were to bring certain knowledge from the other fields to these ones, you will have a better chance than them, as, you will be more resourceful - you will have more theories at your disposal.

~ Remember to approach it from the foundations. this is where you build your argument based on, for example, with making oil out of wood. this would be where you analyse that coal is burned wood, and, oil is liquefied coal, of course. take little steps, and, face the question with all the foundation knowledge on hand.