What makes the ideal teacher?
I believe most would say that good teachers primarily require professionalism in their topic and the ability to effectively communicate. In our terms, these requirements would be a developed perspective (sufficiently large, possibly from incorporating the perspectives of "professionals") and trained use of translation (or perhaps better wording: the capability of triggering others to efficiently utilize translation; which requires that one be able to utilize translation themselves). Naturally, if one has a developed perspective, it is likely BECAUSE they were good at translation, since most things that are taught were originally learned from someone else (especially in today's academic world).
The question is: Is this all that is necessary to being a good teacher?
I suppose there is no inherent reason that a math teacher needs to know the context of how math is used in the real world in order to effectively teach math, but some students seem to prefer that approach. After all, sticking to the context of only using math with equations and in an abstract setting seems to get the "learnee" stuck in only that context and perspective when trying to utilize math. (Thus the development of word problems and why many people find them more difficult despite actually being closer to everyday experience. They simply cannot make the "jump" or translation from the abstract perspective to the concrete.)
Something here connecting hierarchy, translation, and distance. Perhaps hierarchy has as much of an effect on translation as distance does?
This has led to an increase in the development of "critical thinking" courses, which attempt to teach translation (among many other things). I'm still researching critical thinking course techniques; will have to get back to you on this part.
Then you have the issue of distance; teachers are often close, with students far away from the subject. This has become worse since the inception of "core classes" for which the student has no inherent interest. This marked difference in distance makes translation from the student's perspective to the teacher's perspective, and vice versa, much more difficult if not nigh impossible. Teachers teaching in such a way that they would understand (if they had never encountered that particular material before) is simply not sufficient. Distance is often a problem with understanding.
As mentioned before though, could hierarchy be used to overcome the problem of distance? (by making better connections between the topic at hand and an interest of the observer/something closer to the observer?)
Motion makes everything more complicated... A method that would have worked in getting translation to happen with last year's students might not work now (the observer is moving). In addition, what one older teacher knows (or thinks) about a topic may be different from what a newer teacher knows, due to new discoveries in that topic (the observed is moving). This requires the student to do twice as much translating, learning two perspectives on the topic and incorporating those into his/her own perspective. A student rather lax in his translating may just take the first perspective thrown at him and ignore all others.
Not sure how one might overcome or utilize this.
Most teachers never even attempt to create a hierarchy extending outside of their topic (another issue with not knowing/not caring about the context I suppose). This leads to students not trying to analyze the topic from a perspective outside of the "box" the teacher has made. Then the "box" sits in the attic and is never properly incorporated into the hierarchy which might be called the "house". This is possibly what leads to a segmented worldview in which many contradictions exist within one's own perspective.
(Contradictions: the bane of the INTP)
Fuzziness is still fuzzy in this example...
Just an attempt at an example. You gotta start somewhere, right?
