It's my first year in university and in my 'intro to psychology' course we are learning about how the brain works. My proffessors and tutors are all female, and hence, my leanring experience has been rich, although, the richness of the learning experience is of course quite contrary to what the teachers are 'intending' to teach.
What the teachers are 'intending' to teach has not 'directly' and (on their part) 'intentionally' yielded to a rich, interesting and enjoyable learning experience.
However, I have made my experience interesting, educational, enjoyable, and rich by studying and learning about how the minds of these female proffesors work.
What I have learned, is this.
The feminine mind doesnt seem to have too much trouble memorizing 'what'.
Too me, learning the structure, is learning 'what'
Whereas, learning the function of the structure, is learning 'why and how'.
Learning 'why' and 'how' is hard for a feminine mind because it involves conceptualizing how things flow over time, and this 'hard part' is made much harder than it has to be via teachers who think that 'memorizing' structures without understanding 'why' is easy on the brain.
To be forced to memorize a bunch of structures, a bunch of 'whats' is very hard on the brain.
The brain wasn't made to learn that way.
Remembering the 'what' is made infinitely easier when one is simultaneously allowed to inquire into the 'why's of how something function over time.
To the degree that one learns the structure, one should inquire about the why and how it functions through time.
When a teacher teaches, he or she needs to alternate back and forth from 'what' to 'why/how'.
A bad teacher emphasizes only 'what' and cowers and prefers to remain confused about the 'whys and hows'
The problem with most teachers and parents is that they emphasize obedience to and memorization of a structure without trying to illustrate the rationality, meaning and truth of not only the structures 'function' over periods of time, but also the rationality and meaning of why one is learning these 'stuctures' to begin with.
If they were concerned with the rationality of the function, rather than merely authoratively imposing a structure upon the minds of students and offspring (of which are regarded as the means to greater financial and status gain), then the teachers and parents would see themselves as the children and students that they truly are, and would hence learn a great deal from the children.
The children would then, in turn, generally respect their elders and become better, wiser human beings rather than the scoundrels and prostitutes that they tend to become when subjected to a childhood of 'what' (irrational, meaningless, static structure) instead of a childhood of 'why' (rational, meaningful, dynamic function)
'Why' we function through time, and 'the what'
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
in school whenever i had a prof who was not creative or flexible in allowing me to be creative there was conflict
but those professors who let me add my own thinking to the agenda were delighted with the results
in english lit the book said chaucer was influenced by dante so my prof let me do dante
my math teacher after a bit of toe to to toe let me do work on the relationship between math and music theory
my composition teacher was the best i will never forget her
but in voice i refused to sing the amore amore art songs that are the standard fare
and when i took one word 'but' out of purcell's dido's lament and replaced the note with a rest (silence) i really got grief
my last lit teacher used to apologize to me for giving me a 95 or 98 on an essay as 'i was no longer writing academically'
those teachers who allowed me to adapt the curriculum to my interests were the ones that taught me that this knowledge was not just for the classroom not just for the A but useful in real life
plus i was authentically interested so i learned things about the subjects and about myself that i would never have discovered otherwise
after my first semesters i knew who the best professors were and took their classes
i also used to audit classes that were very difficult classes so i could get the information without worrying about the grade
but those professors who let me add my own thinking to the agenda were delighted with the results
in english lit the book said chaucer was influenced by dante so my prof let me do dante
my math teacher after a bit of toe to to toe let me do work on the relationship between math and music theory
my composition teacher was the best i will never forget her
but in voice i refused to sing the amore amore art songs that are the standard fare
and when i took one word 'but' out of purcell's dido's lament and replaced the note with a rest (silence) i really got grief
my last lit teacher used to apologize to me for giving me a 95 or 98 on an essay as 'i was no longer writing academically'
those teachers who allowed me to adapt the curriculum to my interests were the ones that taught me that this knowledge was not just for the classroom not just for the A but useful in real life
plus i was authentically interested so i learned things about the subjects and about myself that i would never have discovered otherwise
after my first semesters i knew who the best professors were and took their classes
i also used to audit classes that were very difficult classes so i could get the information without worrying about the grade
one day i was speaking with my math professor dr. rameau
'pythagoras was a mathematician right' says i
'right'
'pythagoras was a musician right'
'right'
pythagoras was a philosopher right'
'i don't know' he says
how can you end up with a doctorate in anything without knowing pythagoras was a philosopher
'pythagoras was a mathematician right' says i
'right'
'pythagoras was a musician right'
'right'
pythagoras was a philosopher right'
'i don't know' he says
how can you end up with a doctorate in anything without knowing pythagoras was a philosopher
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
That's strange - the difference between American high schools and American colleges is that in high school, to do well on the test we must study the what and be able to parrot back which whats the teachers found important. In college, the format changes to in order to do well on the test, you must know the hows. It would have been nice if someone told us the rules of the game had changed before we saw the first collegiate exam.
I naturally learned hows better than whats, so it took me awhile to learn how to change my thinking to even discern which whats were important, which I determined by 6th grade, was different for each teacher (to me, who cares exactly what year what occurred - but in what order would be more important, what was learned/gained from it more important than that, and how it affects today and tomorrow at least as important. some teachers cared precisely what year things occurred, and others only cared precisely what year it came to America - and this observation was about both male and female teachers.)
In 9th grade, I was having difficulty discern which parts were important to memorize for the test, and there was much to study for each test. The male teacher instructed me to underline the important parts. Belaboring the question, I asked which parts were important. The following is an actual quote:
He: What parts do you think are important?
me: It all looks important to me.
He: Then underline all of it.
Fine, I underlined about 3 chapters a week, and my grades did not improve. By 11th grade I was an honor roll student, but by college it took me awhile to get the hang of it again - and learn that some classes required more rote memorization and others more application - but even the rote memorization ones wanted background research that was not in the book.
It was like 10 years between biology and microbiology, and scientists had designated new phylums, species and I believe even a new kingdom during that decade. After bombing my first test, I went to the instructor and wanted to know why she tested on material that she had not taught. Here's how that one went:
She: Everything on the test was in the book:
Me: Where was this? (pointed at a test question)
She: (flipped every page forward through the chapter, every page backward through the chaper, every page forward again) Well, these headings that are in bold are names of phylums, and the ones in italics are names of species.
Me: Where did it say that? (meaning, where did it designate which typeset designated which designation)
She: It didn't, but you are responsible to know everything in all of the prerequisites for this course.
If you don't teach it, don't test it. And, in life as well as in school, it would be nice to share the rules before enforcing them.
I naturally learned hows better than whats, so it took me awhile to learn how to change my thinking to even discern which whats were important, which I determined by 6th grade, was different for each teacher (to me, who cares exactly what year what occurred - but in what order would be more important, what was learned/gained from it more important than that, and how it affects today and tomorrow at least as important. some teachers cared precisely what year things occurred, and others only cared precisely what year it came to America - and this observation was about both male and female teachers.)
In 9th grade, I was having difficulty discern which parts were important to memorize for the test, and there was much to study for each test. The male teacher instructed me to underline the important parts. Belaboring the question, I asked which parts were important. The following is an actual quote:
He: What parts do you think are important?
me: It all looks important to me.
He: Then underline all of it.
Fine, I underlined about 3 chapters a week, and my grades did not improve. By 11th grade I was an honor roll student, but by college it took me awhile to get the hang of it again - and learn that some classes required more rote memorization and others more application - but even the rote memorization ones wanted background research that was not in the book.
It was like 10 years between biology and microbiology, and scientists had designated new phylums, species and I believe even a new kingdom during that decade. After bombing my first test, I went to the instructor and wanted to know why she tested on material that she had not taught. Here's how that one went:
She: Everything on the test was in the book:
Me: Where was this? (pointed at a test question)
She: (flipped every page forward through the chapter, every page backward through the chaper, every page forward again) Well, these headings that are in bold are names of phylums, and the ones in italics are names of species.
Me: Where did it say that? (meaning, where did it designate which typeset designated which designation)
She: It didn't, but you are responsible to know everything in all of the prerequisites for this course.
If you don't teach it, don't test it. And, in life as well as in school, it would be nice to share the rules before enforcing them.
i learn best aurally
some people visually
some kinetically
so if i showed up and listened that was sufficient
in music theory and dance there is a lot of what appears rote repetition but it is not if you get what is supposed to be happening that in each repetition there is the opportunity to make it more by subtle changes even if only in your awareness
i never figured out the rules
i had this one teacher in grade school whom i will never forget
she knew i read in class i read everywhere in those days but i got A's on all the tests because i could listen to her and read hesse or balzac at the same time
so she said to me
'you never do your homework but you get A's on the test but since the others do their homework....'
so we worked out a deal i would get an A if i got 100 on all tests otherwise i could sit by the window and read without blame and i would just get a B
she realized that that was being a good teacher for me i thought she was brilliant
some people visually
some kinetically
so if i showed up and listened that was sufficient
in music theory and dance there is a lot of what appears rote repetition but it is not if you get what is supposed to be happening that in each repetition there is the opportunity to make it more by subtle changes even if only in your awareness
i never figured out the rules
i had this one teacher in grade school whom i will never forget
she knew i read in class i read everywhere in those days but i got A's on all the tests because i could listen to her and read hesse or balzac at the same time
so she said to me
'you never do your homework but you get A's on the test but since the others do their homework....'
so we worked out a deal i would get an A if i got 100 on all tests otherwise i could sit by the window and read without blame and i would just get a B
she realized that that was being a good teacher for me i thought she was brilliant
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Sure, no probs, thanks for your thankfulness.
I was half expecting a bit of criticisim from the females for my associating the absence of wanting to know 'how' and 'why' with the 'feminine' mind.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, I wanted to put my original post in a more simple form....
The lowest mind is concerned only with knowing what in order to get what.
A higher mind (but still a low mind) concernes itself more with knowing how, in order to get what.
The highest mind concerns itself with knowing 'why' it wants to know 'how' in order to get 'what'.
I was half expecting a bit of criticisim from the females for my associating the absence of wanting to know 'how' and 'why' with the 'feminine' mind.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, I wanted to put my original post in a more simple form....
The lowest mind is concerned only with knowing what in order to get what.
A higher mind (but still a low mind) concernes itself more with knowing how, in order to get what.
The highest mind concerns itself with knowing 'why' it wants to know 'how' in order to get 'what'.
that is what i mean i realized i was not thinking the best way i already knew what but i was trying to get there from how but now i see that if i really deeply 'grok' why then the how to what will follow like a valid argumentThe lowest mind is concerned only with knowing what in order to get what.
A higher mind (but still a low mind) concernes itself more with knowing how, in order to get what.
The highest mind concerns itself with knowing 'why' it wants to know 'how' in order to get 'what'.
plus i was not happy at how i just thought i should be thinking how
why is much more to my inclination and more me it feels more authentic
so i feel free to delve into why without feeling like i should be thinking how
and everybody alreay knows i am not buying that feminine micro whatever :) so it doesn't bother me
-
Steven Coyle
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Hey Sky, could you make an effort to use punctuation when you write your posts? You have to be more considerate to your readers!
Your posts are often quite a strain for me to interpret.
Question marks, periods, commas - - these things make a world of difference.
Anyways, lets take a peak at what you said:
(notice how I added punctuation)
Sky,
Is it that you want a particular destiny, and despite you are doing your best to learn how to achieve that destiny, you still don't feel you are getting where you wish yourself to be?
You mean, you are not happy about how you have been thinking for the past few years, months?
Do you mean: 'you feel like your thinking is not longer tethered to shallower motives?'
If you inquire with intelligence, things that were once important and big become regarded as trivial and small, and whatever value your old fancies once had becomes destroyed.
If you inquire with courage and passion for truth, you will see the big picture and hence you will resolve to go beyond mere worldliness.
Your posts are often quite a strain for me to interpret.
Question marks, periods, commas - - these things make a world of difference.
Anyways, lets take a peak at what you said:
(notice how I added punctuation)
Sky: That is what I mean. I realized I was not thinking the best way. I already knew 'what' but i was trying to get there from how but now I see that if I really deeply 'grok' why then the 'how-to-what' will follow like a valid argument
Sky,
Is it that you want a particular destiny, and despite you are doing your best to learn how to achieve that destiny, you still don't feel you are getting where you wish yourself to be?
'just thought'?Sky: Plus I was not happy at how I just thought i should be thinking how
You mean, you are not happy about how you have been thinking for the past few years, months?
Asking why (also known as: inquiry) can be very destructive to previous values and notions, it can lead to some very dark realizations.Sky: 'Why' is much more to my inclination and more me. It feels more authentic
Sky: So I feel free to delve into why without feeling like I should be thinking how
Do you mean: 'you feel like your thinking is not longer tethered to shallower motives?'
I think that a feminine way of thinking protects and engenders shallow emotions and it fears deeper and darker sensations. I also think a feminine mind has a difficult time seeing the big picture. Feminines tend to have quite a knack for making things more complex than they have to be, and I think this is because of their other skill: getting lost in trivial details.Sky: and everybody alreay knows i am not buying that feminine micro whatever :) so it doesn't bother me
If you inquire with intelligence, things that were once important and big become regarded as trivial and small, and whatever value your old fancies once had becomes destroyed.
If you inquire with courage and passion for truth, you will see the big picture and hence you will resolve to go beyond mere worldliness.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Steve wrote:
I suppose it is masculine to know 'what' and to be 'what'.
The 'what' is masculine.
That's why you always hear children constantly asking 'why?'
Woman and femininely minded people, when devestated by an undesirable event often exclaim in despair: "why??!!!"
So there is an art to asking why.
To ask why is to be aware of ones unconscious, to be aware of ones femininity and thus the intuitive proccess is set in motion.
The problem with these proffessors is that their heads are filled with 'what' but when it all comes down to it, they really don't know 'what' they are talking about, or why they are talking about it.
That's because they havent mastered the art of 'why'.
They arent aware of their femininty, they don't know what it is, and thats because they don't ask why.
Actually, yeah your right. Now that's ironic.Your "why" to "what" also describes the processing of the intuitive experience.
I suppose it is masculine to know 'what' and to be 'what'.
The 'what' is masculine.
That's why you always hear children constantly asking 'why?'
Woman and femininely minded people, when devestated by an undesirable event often exclaim in despair: "why??!!!"
So there is an art to asking why.
To ask why is to be aware of ones unconscious, to be aware of ones femininity and thus the intuitive proccess is set in motion.
The problem with these proffessors is that their heads are filled with 'what' but when it all comes down to it, they really don't know 'what' they are talking about, or why they are talking about it.
That's because they havent mastered the art of 'why'.
They arent aware of their femininty, they don't know what it is, and thats because they don't ask why.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
yes I agree, I’ve had similar experiences in academia. With the exception of a few professors that are capable of Marxian critiques of society and a Freudian psychoanalysis of authors and characters, the majority of university classes are simply the memorization of blind data that doesn’t point to anything.
As you suggest with your 'why', 'what' and 'how' trio.
Philosophy classes are the worst disgrace of them all. I’m currently taking a class called contemporary moral problems and ironically the entire classroom full of students and the professor are a ‘contemporary moral problem.’
Whenever our dialogues get interesting or reach a depth that could hurt someone’s feelings, the philosophy professor rudely and cowardly cuts me off and switches the subject.
He also doesn’t like it when we use other natural sciences to backup our arguments. For instance: I was using biological examples to refute the rationality of cloning human beings and he cut me off saying that we ought to stick to philosophy and not veer off into a biological debate.
His philosophy is simply wishy washy and blind systems of reasoning that function to evade any fundamental and concrete truths of the world.
One of the reasons I continue to attend university is to simply witness the unique weasels and how they swarm and circumvent fundamental truths.
“Welcome to the Gong Show people, form a line and wait your turn…â€
As you suggest with your 'why', 'what' and 'how' trio.
Philosophy classes are the worst disgrace of them all. I’m currently taking a class called contemporary moral problems and ironically the entire classroom full of students and the professor are a ‘contemporary moral problem.’
Whenever our dialogues get interesting or reach a depth that could hurt someone’s feelings, the philosophy professor rudely and cowardly cuts me off and switches the subject.
He also doesn’t like it when we use other natural sciences to backup our arguments. For instance: I was using biological examples to refute the rationality of cloning human beings and he cut me off saying that we ought to stick to philosophy and not veer off into a biological debate.
His philosophy is simply wishy washy and blind systems of reasoning that function to evade any fundamental and concrete truths of the world.
One of the reasons I continue to attend university is to simply witness the unique weasels and how they swarm and circumvent fundamental truths.
“Welcome to the Gong Show people, form a line and wait your turn…â€
@cory
i have little trouble seeing the big picture and i could care less for your interpretation of the feminine mind anymore than i do anyone else's
i had started to answer your questions but since you have already 'know' my mind why bother right
and no i don't feel like adapting my style of writing
neither would e e cummings i suspect
you are right in that there is art in pondering why
but of course the wise ponder 'who' (am i)
but where is all this happening and when
i have little trouble seeing the big picture and i could care less for your interpretation of the feminine mind anymore than i do anyone else's
i had started to answer your questions but since you have already 'know' my mind why bother right
and no i don't feel like adapting my style of writing
neither would e e cummings i suspect
you are right in that there is art in pondering why
but of course the wise ponder 'who' (am i)
but where is all this happening and when
Last edited by sky on Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
cory
coryThe lowest mind is concerned only with knowing what in order to get what.
A higher mind (but still a low mind) concernes itself more with knowing how, in order to get what.
The highest mind concerns itself with knowing 'why' it wants to know 'how' in order to get 'what'.
I suppose it is masculine to know 'what' and to be 'what'.
The 'what' is masculine.
That's why you always hear children constantly asking 'why?'
Woman and femininely minded people, when devestated by an undesirable event of exclaim in despair: "why??!!!"
all which isn't singing is mere talking
and all talking's talking to oneself
(whether that oneself be sought or seeking
master or disciple sheep or wolf)
gush to it as diety or devil
-toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles
name it cruel fair or blessed evil-
it is you (ne i)nobody else
drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing
-you are deafened every mother's son-
all is merely talk which isn't singing
and all talking's to oneself alone
but the very song of(as mountains
feel and lovers)singing is silence
ee cummings
and all talking's talking to oneself
(whether that oneself be sought or seeking
master or disciple sheep or wolf)
gush to it as diety or devil
-toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles
name it cruel fair or blessed evil-
it is you (ne i)nobody else
drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing
-you are deafened every mother's son-
all is merely talk which isn't singing
and all talking's to oneself alone
but the very song of(as mountains
feel and lovers)singing is silence
ee cummings
-
Steven Coyle
Yes. The soul must listen to the talk of chatter.all which isn't singing is mere talking
and all talking's talking to oneself
(whether that oneself be sought or seeking
master or disciple sheep or wolf)
gush to it as diety or devil
-toss in sobs and reasons threats and smiles
name it cruel fair or blessed evil-
it is you (ne i)nobody else
drive dumb mankind dizzy with haranguing
-you are deafened every mother's son-
all is merely talk which isn't singing
and all talking's to oneself alone
but the very song of(as mountains
feel and lovers)singing is silence
ee cummings
But ee should have better versed the amplitude of multi-colored translator mode, at the base of the rip tide crashing.
-
Steven Coyle
-
Steven Coyle
Chuang Tzu: Inner Chapters
He who knows what is of God and who knows what is of Man has reached indeed the height (of wisdom). One who knows what is of God patterns his living after God. One who knows what is of Man may still use his knowledge of the known to develop his knowledge of the unknown, living till the end of his days and not perishing young. This is the fullness of knowledge. Herein, however, there is a flaw. Correct knowledge is dependent on objects, but the objects of knowledge are relative and uncertain (changing). How can one know that the natural is not really of man, and what is of man is not really natural? We must, moreover, have true men before we can have true knowledge.
But what is a true man? The true men of old did not override the weak, did not attain their ends by brute strength, and did not gather around them counsellors. Thus, failing they had no cause for regret; succeeding, no cause for self-satisfaction. And thus they could scale heights without trembling, enter water without becoming wet, and go through fire without feeling hot. That is the kind of knowledge which reaches to the depths of Tao.
He who knows what is of God and who knows what is of Man has reached indeed the height (of wisdom). One who knows what is of God patterns his living after God. One who knows what is of Man may still use his knowledge of the known to develop his knowledge of the unknown, living till the end of his days and not perishing young. This is the fullness of knowledge. Herein, however, there is a flaw. Correct knowledge is dependent on objects, but the objects of knowledge are relative and uncertain (changing). How can one know that the natural is not really of man, and what is of man is not really natural? We must, moreover, have true men before we can have true knowledge.
But what is a true man? The true men of old did not override the weak, did not attain their ends by brute strength, and did not gather around them counsellors. Thus, failing they had no cause for regret; succeeding, no cause for self-satisfaction. And thus they could scale heights without trembling, enter water without becoming wet, and go through fire without feeling hot. That is the kind of knowledge which reaches to the depths of Tao.
Last edited by Steven Coyle on Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.