Three Insurgencies: Early Christianity, Vietnamese Communism, and al Qaeda as case studies for "International Law as a Social Cognitive Battlespace"

Big Cheese approved my idea for a final paper, outlined previously in my notes: International Law as a Social Cognitive Battlespace. BC is skeptical of the Boydian background and the choice of case studies: early Christianity, Vietnamese Communism, and al Qaeda; however, other students were surprised that he approved anything this early, so I will take that as a good sign.

I imagine that most of the “substantive” or original (dare I say gifted?) posts at tdaxp for a while will relate to one part or another of the paper. This is out of habit, but BC said good words about the importance of writing, so I think that is a good idea. Anyway, the structure:

International Law
Social Cognition
Existing Research
– IL/SC and Realism
– IL/SC and Liberalism
– IL/SC and Constructivism
– IL/SC and the Rise of al Qaeda
– IL/SC and the Rise of the Vietnamese Communists
– IL/SC and the Rise of Early Christianity
Avenues of Disproof

So, without further adieu, the first, abrig’d, matrix edition of the Practice section:

3 insurgencies
Early Christianity, Vietnamese Communism, and al Qaeda

Now to extend thsi graphic to 10 pages. Huzzah.

SOAR to Win

Test next week
– 70 questions
– multiple choice mostly

Ineffective learning
– with the strong people
– poor lists instead of matricies
– but have to select with eye toward organization

Some words on reinforcement
– reward after a fixed interval
– easy to extinguish
– rapid responses
variable intervals
– reward after a random interval
– hard to extinguish
– steady responses
– rapid response rates
– slow response rates

(International Law, Social Cognition, and SOAR?)

SOAR Learning strategies / skills
(SOAR book by the instructor!!! this guy is an excellent teacher)


The SOAR Study System
– SOAR teaches learner assertiveness and responsibility
– super-empowerment?

Selection (Attention / Observation)
– noke taking and achievement
– note completeness
– attention and storage functions
– lecture cues
– repeating lectures
– what to do before, during, and after lectures
– more “selection” needed for listening than for reading?

Organization (Representation / earlier Orientation)
– order topics and categories
– create multiple representations

Associate (Connections / latter Orientation – not rehearse!)
– internal associations
– external associations

Regulate (Act/Test — “self-test”)
– types of test questions
– error analysis
– involves single-fact questions, relational-fact questions, and concept (recognize new examples) questions, and skills questions

(“teacher A+” is a SOAR teacher: pre-selected, pre-organized, pre-associated, pre-regulated? A+ = Teacher-Centric SOAR? )
(but… is it useful for teachers to hand-out notes?)

SOAR step 1: Selection
note-taking postively correlated with achievement (reason for success of 5GW — hard to “achieve” against?)
– but, students are incomplete notetakers (maybe record a third of the main points? freshmen only record 11%?)
– two functions of note taking:
— encoding (processing) = note-taking itself helps memorization – probably, but inconclusive evidence for this
— storage (external, review) = secondary data source for future studying – absolutely helps (because people have lousy memories), even when the non-review group gets to see the lecture twice

Lecture Cues Study

Org Points Detail Points
Cued 54% 80%

Non-Cued 15% 37%

(80% note-taking is phenomenal — remember it)

Study on Repeating a Lecture
– existing demonstrated students learn more with each repitition of lecture (church implications? – so why no note-taking in church? more focued on changing orientation?)
– on first viewing, people recording 80% of main ideas, and 35% of details
– on second viewing, people recording 80% (!) of main ideas, and 50% of details
– on third viewing, people recording 80% (!!) of main ideas, and 65%

useful to provide skeleton outline to students? what about to enemy? “we’re going to do this, then, there, this way, because” — Bush and Iraq?
– jumps note-taking to about 65%
– blank space invites students to fill it?

(86% chance of student writing down something if it is written on the board – criticism of powerpoint?)

A study on provided notes
– students could aquire by taking notes, listening, or not attend
– could review through own notes (if they had), both theirs and the instructor, or just instructors
– instructor notes “very high quality”
(while giving these notes, SuperTeacher made class predict test outcomes)
– from best to worst performers, test performance
– Take / Reviewd Both (71%)
– Not Attend, Instructor (69%)
– Listen, Instructor (63%)
– Take, Own (51%)
– Take, Mentally (44%)
– Listen, Mentally (43%)
– Not Attend, Mentaly (33%)
– this study was “very controversial”
– cliff notes implications!! “in a nutshell” implications
– so getting another student’s learn is a good way to learn

Lecture Strategies
before the lecture: be there / on time, up front / on the edge (of the seat)
during the lecture: get it all / fast / now (st: “impose your will”) / again
after: fill up / fix up
– how does this apply to states?

Organization (Representation / early Orientation)
alert words imply proper representation (phases, stages, steps, etc)
diagraming as training to think — like Law as training to virtue?
remember matrices, etc, should be well organized
multiple representations – often it is best to use different representations for different parts of levels of material

hwo does social cognition relate to behavioralism? that is, if someone feels bad because they see another hurt, is their modified behavior because of social cognition or behaviorism? international law implications?

Three main types of questions:
Facts – what is?
Concept – recognize an exmaple
Skill – do it
– how to apply to computer teaching?
– does student privacy regulations impede social cognition?
– does national sovereignty of information impede international law?
– Hammes et al care about about skill learning than fact/concept
– which brings up, purposeful action without knowing the purpose (5GW implications?)

error analysis
– test retakes as part of SOAR learning?
– types of reanalysis (content / type / source of error;why did you get it wrong?;what part of SOAR was missing?)