On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Richard Ulrich wrote: > - warning - Another digression (being bright, and being conscious). > > On 27 Apr 2004 11:12:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman > Rubin) wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Art Kendall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >part 2 > > >One thing that is being done very frequently today is to have > > >children teach each other some of the time. Recall Seneca's > > >"docens discimus", "in teaching, we learn". Trying to find > > >different ways to communicate the same concept to people broadens > > >and deepens our understanding. > > > > >In addition, my recall of my grammar school education is based on > > >my perception at the time when my mind was much less developed. > > > > This may be the case for adults, but not necessarily for > > children. When my son was 6, he understood, and could do, > > algebra and logic, but he could not explain anything. > > > > One has to learn a lot to explain something which is, to > > him, completely obvious, to someone who does not see it. > > Oh! Now we introduce 'consciousness'.
Well, no. So far as I can see, all Herman is introducing here is the (perfectly valid) distinction between being able to do something and being able to talk about doing it: that is, between performance and verbalization. I would have thought it axiomatic that "explaining" was (logically and chronologically) subsequent to being able to verbalize. And verbalizing, of course, is exceedingly difficult if the parties to the communication do not share a useful vocabulary. Of course, there are other styles of teaching than verbal: e.g., while dance teachers in the U.S. (and England) commonly describe the steps and figures in words, while illustrating them with performance, I've known dance teachers from the Continent who expected learners to observe what (and how) the teachers were doing in the dance, and to mimic that in their own dancing, with quite negligible verbal descriptions from the teacher. Approaches of that kind are (in my experience) exceedingly rare, if not non-existent, in formal academic schooling. > I have previously assumed that consciousness was a good thing > for science and math, and underlies future learning. So, I would > have expect that your well-advanced son could learn by teaching. Sure he could. But "teaching" wasn't the point of Herman's comment: "explaining" was. Doubtless the boy could also learn by "explaining", if he were able to explain. > I thought that the arguments for 'natural ease' were confined to > production in certain of the arts, as performed by very young > people. Yes, adults want to get back to naturalness and > unconsciousness, but we do that most fruitfully after training -- > which (I think) is characterized by being conscious. Hmm. On the part of the trainer, the trainee, or both? And surely "most fruitfully" depends at least in part on the alternatives available, which in turn depend on the modes of communication mutually available to trainer and trainee. > I am curious, do folks here assume the same, or otherwise? ------------------------------------------------------------ Donald F. Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 56 Sebbins Pond Drive, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 626-0816 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
