F. de Marzipan
11-07-2007, 02:08 PM
I got to thinking about this the other day, and thought I’d ask you all about your thoughts/experiences. See, here’s the thing…
From time to time in school and in business, I’ve come across people who insist on teaching or training me by giving me all the tiny bits and pieces first, eventually working up to the end product or final result. Sometimes, they don’t even go into why this information is important, how it fits into the grand scheme of things, or why I should give a care, they just start at the bottom of the pile and work their way up. “There’s no need for you to know where this is going.”
Unfortunately, I learn best starting at the top. When I’m shown the big picture first, I’m far better able to focus on the little pieces that comprise the whole, and more rapidly understand where they go and why they’re important. If I never get the larger construct, I feel like I’m wandering about in the dark with a 1-watt bulb.
While it’s true that events and processes all begin with many tiny details that ultimately produce one big product or process or plan, is that really the best way to learn about them? Doesn’t it make more sense to have a final image in mind before attempting to assemble a 1000-piece puzzle?
I discovered this learning/teaching dichotomy when I was in college. I was accepted into a crazy interdisciplinary freshman course called General Studies Thematic (http://www.csuchico.edu/gst/). It was a Monday through Friday, year-long course, 4 to 6 hours a day, taught by six professors from different disciplines (art, science, math, literature, history, etc.), and satisfied all but a few units of the general education requirements. It was the first time in my life I can recall anyone approaching teaching that way, and man, did it work.
Anyone ever watch the old PBS/BBC show Connections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29)? (If not, you should seek it out; it’s wonderful.) It was an interdisciplinary approach to history and it spoke to me in ways that literally changed my life. Plus, Burke was sort of hot, in a 1970s Irish way… :D
Connections explores an "Alternative View of Change" (the subtitle of the series) that rejects the conventional linear and teleological view of historical progress. Burke contends that one cannot consider the development of any particular piece of the modern world in isolation. Rather, the entire gestalt of the modern world is the result of a web of interconnected events, each one consisting of a person or group acting in rational self-interest with no concept of the final, modern result of what either their or their contemporaries' actions finally lead to. The interplay of the results of these isolated events is what drives history and innovation, and is also the main focus of the series and its sequels.
To demonstrate this view, Burke begins each episode with a particular event or innovation in the past (usually Ancient or Medieval times) and traces the path from that event through a series of seemingly unrelated connections to a fundamental and essential aspect of the modern world. For example, the program traces the invention of plastics from the development of the fluyt, a type of Dutch cargo ship.
Burke also explores three corollaries to his initial thesis. The first is that, if history is driven by individuals who act only on what they know at the time and not because of any idea as to where their actions will eventually lead, then predicting the future course of technological progress is futile conjecture. If we are astonished by the connections Burke is able to weave among past events, then we will be equally surprised by what the events of today eventually lead to, especially events we weren't even aware of at the time.
The second and third corollaries are explored most in the introductory and concluding episodes, and they represent the downside of an interconnected history. If history progresses because of the synergistic interaction of past events and innovations, then as history does progress, the number of these events and innovations increases. This increase in possible connections causes the process of innovation to not only continue, but to accelerate. Burke poses the question of what happens when this rate of innovation, or more importantly change itself, becomes too much for the average person to handle and what this means for individual power, liberty, and privacy.
Lastly, if the entire modern world is built from these interconnected innovations, all increasingly maintained and improved by specialists who required years of training to gain their expertise, what chance does the average citizen without this extensive training have in making an informed decision on practical technological issues, such as the building of nuclear power plants or the funding of controversial projects such as stem cell research? Furthermore, if the modern world is increasingly interconnected, what happens when one of those nodes collapses? Does the entire system follow suit?
So, um. Yeah. That’s all I had to say. :) Comments?
From time to time in school and in business, I’ve come across people who insist on teaching or training me by giving me all the tiny bits and pieces first, eventually working up to the end product or final result. Sometimes, they don’t even go into why this information is important, how it fits into the grand scheme of things, or why I should give a care, they just start at the bottom of the pile and work their way up. “There’s no need for you to know where this is going.”
Unfortunately, I learn best starting at the top. When I’m shown the big picture first, I’m far better able to focus on the little pieces that comprise the whole, and more rapidly understand where they go and why they’re important. If I never get the larger construct, I feel like I’m wandering about in the dark with a 1-watt bulb.
While it’s true that events and processes all begin with many tiny details that ultimately produce one big product or process or plan, is that really the best way to learn about them? Doesn’t it make more sense to have a final image in mind before attempting to assemble a 1000-piece puzzle?
I discovered this learning/teaching dichotomy when I was in college. I was accepted into a crazy interdisciplinary freshman course called General Studies Thematic (http://www.csuchico.edu/gst/). It was a Monday through Friday, year-long course, 4 to 6 hours a day, taught by six professors from different disciplines (art, science, math, literature, history, etc.), and satisfied all but a few units of the general education requirements. It was the first time in my life I can recall anyone approaching teaching that way, and man, did it work.
Anyone ever watch the old PBS/BBC show Connections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29)? (If not, you should seek it out; it’s wonderful.) It was an interdisciplinary approach to history and it spoke to me in ways that literally changed my life. Plus, Burke was sort of hot, in a 1970s Irish way… :D
Connections explores an "Alternative View of Change" (the subtitle of the series) that rejects the conventional linear and teleological view of historical progress. Burke contends that one cannot consider the development of any particular piece of the modern world in isolation. Rather, the entire gestalt of the modern world is the result of a web of interconnected events, each one consisting of a person or group acting in rational self-interest with no concept of the final, modern result of what either their or their contemporaries' actions finally lead to. The interplay of the results of these isolated events is what drives history and innovation, and is also the main focus of the series and its sequels.
To demonstrate this view, Burke begins each episode with a particular event or innovation in the past (usually Ancient or Medieval times) and traces the path from that event through a series of seemingly unrelated connections to a fundamental and essential aspect of the modern world. For example, the program traces the invention of plastics from the development of the fluyt, a type of Dutch cargo ship.
Burke also explores three corollaries to his initial thesis. The first is that, if history is driven by individuals who act only on what they know at the time and not because of any idea as to where their actions will eventually lead, then predicting the future course of technological progress is futile conjecture. If we are astonished by the connections Burke is able to weave among past events, then we will be equally surprised by what the events of today eventually lead to, especially events we weren't even aware of at the time.
The second and third corollaries are explored most in the introductory and concluding episodes, and they represent the downside of an interconnected history. If history progresses because of the synergistic interaction of past events and innovations, then as history does progress, the number of these events and innovations increases. This increase in possible connections causes the process of innovation to not only continue, but to accelerate. Burke poses the question of what happens when this rate of innovation, or more importantly change itself, becomes too much for the average person to handle and what this means for individual power, liberty, and privacy.
Lastly, if the entire modern world is built from these interconnected innovations, all increasingly maintained and improved by specialists who required years of training to gain their expertise, what chance does the average citizen without this extensive training have in making an informed decision on practical technological issues, such as the building of nuclear power plants or the funding of controversial projects such as stem cell research? Furthermore, if the modern world is increasingly interconnected, what happens when one of those nodes collapses? Does the entire system follow suit?
So, um. Yeah. That’s all I had to say. :) Comments?