Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Apr 2002 14:56:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> I think the point I was trying to make to Christopher was that I didn't
> realize the debate had turned into a research project. I just thought we
> were talking about the importance of reading.
We were. That's all. I'm not categorizing your responses and writing papers.
It's just a hobby of mine to explore what people think about education. I used
the phrase "hobby-research" a single time in a throwaway comment. Such a
comment does not reasonably imply anything more.
> As it was, I wasn't exactly sure what he was driving at when he got into
> some of the statistical jargon. I still don't. :)
I guess I'd need you to be more specific. At each turn when you seemed unclear
as to my meaning I attempted to further elaborate. If I have the progression
straight, it went like this:
1) Ben Ellermann wrote:
"reading introduces new ideas and subjects. This leads to a strong desire to
learn throughout life."
2) I responded:
"This sounds like one of those common sense assertions, but can you back it up?
I studied education at university for seven years and I don't recall ever
reading demonstration of such a correlation. (Though my personal annecdotes do
suggest that as well.)"
3) You wrote:
"So you're saying you agree, because you've seen this as a person..... but
you disagree because there is no academic proof?"
4) To which I clarified:
"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."
5) And you asked for clarification on causality with:
"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?"
6) So I explained correlation v. causation with a couple of paragraphs because
it seemed to be what you wanted.
7) To which you responded:
"Chris, I don't mean to harp on this point, but I just don't see what you're
trying to get at in the two paragraphs above. Can you perhaps use an
analogy or two for those of us who haven't studied education at a university
level?"
Which kind of makes it sound as if you didn't actually want (or need) to know.
So I don't know what the deal is.
So at the point where I first introduced statistical jargon you were positing
that I personally believed that the introduction to new ideas brought on by
reading caused a burning life-long desire to learn and simultaneously didn't
believe this because there was no "academic proof."
To clarify:
I do not believe that reading inherently causes a desire for life-long
learning. It seems that those who do have a burning desire to learn
continuously have two key elements (though I would be hard pressed to
substantiate this numerically). These are: 1)innate intellect and
2)association of "learning" with "fun" prior to the time when institutional
schooling drives curiosity to the back of the personality in favor of rewarding
other personality traits.
Reading is a means to acquire information and no more. It is one that I
personally have a sentimental attachment to, but I refuse to allow this
sentimentality to color the way that I think of reading as a parent or an
educator. (Which I am technically not.)
> Further to my note above.... I guess I was trying to get Christopher to
> realize that perhaps it's not possible to quantify the value of reading.
> Perhaps it's something that's out there, like music, films, paintings etc.
> that really doesn't fit into a research model or a pie chart.
Everything that is, can be described. This is a basic philosophical tenet with
which I am comfortable. I'm vaguely surprised to find that you don't think so.
> But... because it was a debate, I was more than willing to read and digest
> his theories... I just couldn't understand what the point was he was trying
> to make. I'm not learned in the world of statistics, so I was hoping he
> could drop some of the jargon and put his thoughts into English. :)
When I detected that you might not understand correlation and causation as
statistical terms I wrote:
> A correlation says that when you observe X, you are to some
> extent likely to observe 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.
Which I thought was an English explanation. If you wanted to point out what
was unclear (which I think is what Larry was trying to get from you) I could
revise my explanation. Looking at it now, I just can't figure out what to
change...but maybe I'm too close to it.
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
|
|
|
|
