Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:55:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > No. I'm saying that I can see how one would come, through a non-rigorous
> > examination, to believe that stance. But even when a correlation is shown
> > (which we haven't pointed to) it says nothing of causality.
>
> You'll have to forgive this member of the laity, but I'm kind of unsure what
> you're saying here. Do you mean to say that even when a link is shown to
> exist, there is no explanation of it's cause? I'm having trouble with
> this..... perhaps you can elaborate?
Does it offend you that I hobby-research lay opinion on education or something?
A correlation says that when you observe X, you are to some extent likely to
ovserve Y as well. Y might be phrased as _not_ Z which means that X and Z are
inversely correlated. Level of formal education and childhood socio-economic
status are inversely correlated.
To demonstrate a correlation between two factors does not at all demonstrate a
causal link. I can't look at the data, pronounce the correlation between
education and SES, and say that poor families don't have equall access to
education. There are tons of other causal and non-causal explanations that
have to be explored.
So, I was going to just say yes to the "even when a link..." comment above, but
there isn't demonstrably a link in the sense that the two correlate for a
related reason.
> Music is called the 'universal language' for a reason. It speaks to, or
> communicates directly with the heart, bypassing the brain altogether.
I'm not sure how to discuss this. I assume you are openly romanticizing about
the affective results of music, but it kind of clouds the issue for me.
> same symbols, different meanings depending upon how they are interpreted.
> The act of being able to interpret them correctly is profoundly important.
Well, sure, without it you wouldn't know how to read. :-)
> If I show you a picture of a tree on TV, you see..... a tree. If I describe
> a tree in a book, you are forced to decipher a series of symbols into words
> which you then connect into a mental image of a tree. I'm no scientist, but
> I'm fairly certain that the latter requires connecting many more synapses
> than the former.
But consider the difference in time that it takes. I can absorb tree in a
fraction of a second from a picture. It takes several seconds for me to
process the description of the same tree in writing. Even if your hypothesis
about synaptic activity is correct, I can continue to process maybe 25 other
tree images in the time it's taking you to read about the one. So how does
synaptic activity across the same frame of time compare?
> > Surely you realize that's what happens when you hear an utterance, right?
>
> It does happen, but it's less profound. There is a direct link between the
> sender and the receiver. With words, there is a less distinct connection.
I agree that you're more removed from the partner in communication if you're
hearing it live. But how is it different if it's a recording?
> The ideas and symbols are more abstract and require more re-engineering on
> the part of the person deciphering the message.
How so? I don't agree off hand, but maybe you have an angle that I'm missing.
> > Further, you are surely not suggesting that you can't learn to build
> > a house by watching videos...right?
>
> You can. But how long is this video? Can I take it to the worksite with
> me? Does it include all the charts, graphs, figures, drawings and other
> reference materials that I need? Or does it give a nice overview, with easy
> to understand visual steps?
The video could be as long as it needed to be. It could be a fully indexed
production so you could review only the sections you needed. It certainly
could include all the charts etc, or even interact with joist-span calculators
and the like. Just because the only construction video that you've ever seen
was a survey, doesn't mean that it has to be that way.
> This is where I'm sincerely confused by your argument Chris. You seem to be
> saying that a person who is well-read and well-educated knows that reading
> isn't terribly important. I guess I would throw this back at you and ask
> why you feel this way?
No, I don't mean that. What I mean is that most people in our society don't
question that reading is important. I would guess that those who do question
this notion tend to have thought about it a bunch, and those who have, probably
study it and are thus educated. I think it takes a certain amount of immersion
in a paradigm -- studying the details, to be able to break through to something
new.
> I still stand by my feelings that those people who do read recreationally
> are generally more likely to read other things that may not be recreational,
> but may enhance their lives.
I agree. And those who watch TV recreationally are more likely to catch
instructive programs while flipping through the stations. Those programs too
may enhance their lives.
> In other words, they may read something, somewhere that
> might just make their life more interesting, more informed or just more
> entertained. But no matter how you slice it, reading anything is better
> than reading nothing.
And if they weren't busy spending all that _time_ reading, they might be
exposed to more topics through other more accessible media.
> > I am. So you're basically saying that making a connection with a favorite
> > novel is essential for a healthy mind?
>
> Yes. I don't trust anyone who can't name their favorite novel.
OK. I guess we disagree.
> > Advance?
>
> Mentally, spiritually, technologically...... we humans have a knack for
> advancing. And how rapid has our advance been since the invention of the
> printing press which gave reading to the masses.
Much slower than our advance since the advent of television.
> > > You stretch your mind by
> > > creating the pictures that accompany the words; by filling out the details
> > > of what isn't written about, not just taking in what's actually on the page.
> >
> > I enjoy that activity too. But I'm not sure how it affects the ability to
> > thrive.
>
> A mind that isn't exercised is prone to whither and weaken. Watching TV,
> listening to music, surfing the web. They're all good exercise; perhaps
> akin to a leisurely walk in the park. But reading is like running a
> marathon at the pace of a 100 yard dash.
I don't think so. If reading were such hard work, people wouldn't do it much.
I certainly know that reading isn't so hard for me. And of that I'm thankful.
> > I think there are lots of things you can spend time doing.
> > Virtually all of them are instructive. Reading is but one of
> > many ways of taking in information. I object to the place
> > reading occupies in our common educational paradigm as and end
> > in itself.
>
> I honestly have trouble understanding an objection to trying to get people
> to read. Be they young or old, I think reading should be wholely
> encouraged. I've never met a person who was worse off for reading.
You don't really know that. How do you know that a person wouldn't have been
better off engaging in some other activity for the time that was spent reading?
And who gets to define "better off" anyway? When you want people to be
encouraged to read, how do you imagine this encouragement taking place?
Bribery?
> You said the magic word..... pressured. You are 100% correct. Kids should
> never be pressured to read. They should be *encoraged* to read. Let them
> read anything...... everything.
On this we seem to agree completely.
> Conversation is terribly important and should be likewise encouraged. But
> if you aren't well and widely read, then from where do you draw your
> vocabulary and language skills?
How about conversation, radio, TV, other recorded media, teaching machines,
etc?
> > > > Some people learn really powerfully by reading and others have a hard
> > > > time without discussion. People are different. Reading has been placed on • an
> > > > educational alter largely because it was the primary way that we passed
> > > > information around for a long long time.
> > >
> > > But if it ain't broke, why fix it?
> >
> > Oh but before the technology of the written word was invented information was
> > quite handily passed down through oral traditions. That wasn't broke(en)
> > either. Why fix it?
>
> Because something better did come along. The written word. It allowed
> ideas to live on, past their orators... this was a vital link in passing on
> advanced ideas so that each generation didn't have to reinvent them.
So if TV (or multimedia, really) is a better technology, then we should fully
adopt it as well, right?
> I'm not convinced that any of the 'modern' technologies are any better than
> the printed word. After all, without reading, the web would be nothing more
> than a bunch of blurry pictures surrounded by incomprehensible symbols.
I get audio from my web browser. And further, if we were more geared toward
audio communication, the web would be different.
> I've read a number of computer books, from networking to operating systems
> and from programming to HTML.
Me too. Same categories even. But they aren't the end all of educational
technology.
> I can't imagine having learned Visual Basic from a video tape.
> There's simply too much detail to squeeze into a few hours of
> visual media.
Did you learn VB in a few hours of reading? If so, your uptake is pretty
phenominal. And if so, why couldn't you have been exposed to the same content
through some kind of interactive teaching application that played video and
simulated the programming environment for you?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
