TG1
Angelic Poster
Back to the learning discussion ...
Learning, like much of life, is a uniquely personal experience. Trouble is, like other things in life that are personal, we all use the same or similar words to describe them – words like orgasm, chocolate, swimming, relief, understanding.
Discussion about learning is further complicated by the fact that a word like learning is just a bucket for many processes and phenomena, e.g., the grinding effort to gain a toehold on a subject, the gradual glimpse of a counterintuitive hypothesis, the mind-blowing aha moment, the realization that my prior understanding is completely off the mark, the suspicion that my teachers are flawed.
There are also learner types, e.g., those who yearn for certainty as soon as possible vs. those who can will never have enough data to decide anything. Many other attributes distinguish and differentiate our learning styles and processes, and an infinity of weightings and degrees of these attributes in individuals simply demonstrates how very personal the learning experience is for each of us.
Yes, there are entry-level requisites to learning, including understanding the terms we use to teach and learn. But we should also continue to refine and redefine all our terms, including the most basic ones. Other requisites to learning include trust, suspicion, resilience, synthesis, distillation and a willingness to invite scorn, admit failure and toss overboard our sunk costs.
Learning is a fascinating subject. Much effort has been made to understand it, and the studies about it go far, far beyond anything related to “study tech.”
TG1
P.S. In my experience with Scientology, the specifics and intensity of application of "study tech" (like the rest of "standard tech") have varied considerably over the past 40 years.
P.P.S. themadhare, I wish you would post here more often.
Learning, like much of life, is a uniquely personal experience. Trouble is, like other things in life that are personal, we all use the same or similar words to describe them – words like orgasm, chocolate, swimming, relief, understanding.
Discussion about learning is further complicated by the fact that a word like learning is just a bucket for many processes and phenomena, e.g., the grinding effort to gain a toehold on a subject, the gradual glimpse of a counterintuitive hypothesis, the mind-blowing aha moment, the realization that my prior understanding is completely off the mark, the suspicion that my teachers are flawed.
There are also learner types, e.g., those who yearn for certainty as soon as possible vs. those who can will never have enough data to decide anything. Many other attributes distinguish and differentiate our learning styles and processes, and an infinity of weightings and degrees of these attributes in individuals simply demonstrates how very personal the learning experience is for each of us.
Yes, there are entry-level requisites to learning, including understanding the terms we use to teach and learn. But we should also continue to refine and redefine all our terms, including the most basic ones. Other requisites to learning include trust, suspicion, resilience, synthesis, distillation and a willingness to invite scorn, admit failure and toss overboard our sunk costs.
Learning is a fascinating subject. Much effort has been made to understand it, and the studies about it go far, far beyond anything related to “study tech.”
TG1
P.S. In my experience with Scientology, the specifics and intensity of application of "study tech" (like the rest of "standard tech") have varied considerably over the past 40 years.
P.P.S. themadhare, I wish you would post here more often.
"
"
".
