Those would be things to explore. I'm not sure we can make generalizations like those without looking at more examples first. Initially I had in mind that to understand things, one tool would be to recognize they can be "fuzzy." Do have have any examples or counter-examples?
Right! I assume we are homing in on the thing from various perspectives, not just one. When we do that we can compare. If there are lots of differences we could conclude we are distant. If things seem to "match up" when we try lots of perspectives (that is, trials and errors), we could conclude we are more clear on what the object is.
Well then, subjectivity does not necessarily arise from objectivity nor vice versa. If subjectivity can be viewed as a separate contributor of information, then it can make its own information. Ergo, there are useful and useless perspectives, and the determinant of the meaning of "use" is unidentifiable because of the possible relativity of perspectives. Obtaining perspectives may not lead to greater understanding.
Da Blob. Yes. I forgot all about that point. Now that you mention it, tools are there to operate on something. What is that something? Existence. That is the starting point. Existence may be self-centered, but it doesn't remain that way. There are multiple existences. Once that is discovered, there is Perspective. Then Translation. There is always Distance ... which could have been place first. Then there is Motion, quiet or violent. As we progress, there is the more complex Fuzziness and Hierarchy.
Let's reverse this path for the heck of it: knowledge --> belief --> understanding.
Toddlers and mature ones.
Fuzziness means lack of clarity or definition where when we observe, boundaries or positions are hard to see.
When I defined understanding as "the capacity to deal with things, I didn't look up that word in the dictionary. I just put into words what I had in mind . I don't recall defining "tools" at all, so your question is a good one. I will go back and see what I said about triangles and give a response later. First to some things in your post.
Kinematics is a good example, thatsummer, to inquire as to what the value of these tools is. If most people were to try to deliberately understand kinematics, the one tool they would favor far and away above any other would be analysis (part of hierarchy). They wouldn't even think of it as a tool. They would just hop in. They might take a physics course in kinematics, look up the word in the dictionary ... in fact I just looked it up. "The study of kinematics is often referred to as the geometry of motion" Wikipedia says.
No. Fuzziness can be experienced at ANY distance. One can be far away and see something clearly as when one looks out at the moon. You may not know what it is you see, but what you see is clear. One can be close up and see things as blurry if you are farsighted and are missing your glasses.
You can't. You have to go out and measure. You start with some standard of measurement and make a comparison.
It can be an intuitive psychological state. It can be, as above, a failure to match up the object with another object. There is no standard for fuzziness unless you define standards. I can say, "I measured this object and its size is between eleven and thirteen inches. That is either fuzzy or precise depending on how you wish to use the object.
What about making multiple observations, comparing them and letting them settle in? That's the scientific method. You decide on the object, come up with a way of observing it, make a few observations, have others check it out, and compare. If you begin to be able to predict, you have removed fuzziness. A more concise way of saying it is, you have "zeroed in on the object."
Indeed those are the most common tools consciously used to understand, analysis being THE most deliberate. It's the existence of the other four tools that lie behind my making this thread because they are so overlooked. Without the existence of the other four tools, this theme would not be necessary.
I did that in the interest of understanding the genesis of the tools themselves. I didn't think of them as forming a hierarchy though, but rather they formed a linear arrangement along the line you mentioned.
Good point. As to these tools being basic, what about "logic" itself? Logic is a tool. I don't include that because I'm treating understanding. Understanding is a psychological state. Logic exists outside or rather beyond human understanding. At least that's my thought just now.
That is a point. Analysis is an almost mandatory tool once we have the topic in mind. Context is almost incidental and taken for granted. People tend to take the context for granted once the topic is chosen. They fail to observe their object can have many contexts, each affecting the object. It might be on interest to generalize when the context tool proves useful and when it is not. Yes context and analysis can be separated as per the above comments. However it is important to note that from a still higher level or more distance view, they are one and the same in structure. They belong together.
Yes indeed!
Examples would be most helpful. I have some in mind but so far have found no natural way to introduce them. It is from examples that an expansion of this thread is promised. [Written before I saw your post with actual examples.]Perhaps the best place to start with that would just be examples. (different perspectives anyone?) I'll throw these tools at some basic phenomena and let you know if I get anything interesting back!
Yes a higher level helps understand but doesn't do it all.
If you are talking about understanding the full picture, that is a meaningful issue. Not that we can ever totally understand the full picture, but if we are able to go up and down the hierarchy chain with a modest facility and able to see the picture whole, we then have a good handle on understanding.
This is an emergent example and an excellent one to illustrate the tools I didn't expect, lol.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?
Ah, I was focusing on the relationship between the teacher and topic being taught, as well as the student and the topic being taught. I realize now that I generally disregarded the relationship between the teacher and the student. It gives new perspective.
I think I would agree that recognizing different possible orderings of hierarchies could prove extremely beneficial. That solves most of my questions at the end of my last post.
How do we get people to use different hierarchies (contexts) when trying to understand different things, and to use different hierarchies even when trying to understand the same thing more deeply?
Interesting thought with the barrier...any idea what would constitute or create a barrier between two perspectives? (Are you thinking different cultures, different religion, or am I missing it altogether?)
I tried using the student example as a somewhat concrete example, but I suppose it was still too vague. My goal here in studying the relationships between common hierarchies would be to work out if there is some recurring pattern in their relationships, but I suppose that is a good deal of work and study not really related to this thread. Maybe I'll start a thread relating to that when I have something more concrete; assuming I come up with ANY recurring pattern at all (which is not certain when it comes to human thought patterns...)
I agree, taking this approach would be much more difficult with a class, if not flat-out impractical. I switched to thinking of one-on-one benefits simply because I rarely have the opportunity of "teaching" a class.
Yes, I was using "different hierarchies" to basically mean "topics in different contexts". Since I was emphasizing the context of the topic more than the topic itself, and since "hierarchy" became a common term in this thread, I stuck with just repeatedly using "hierarchies". I think I see your point though, I should avoid overusing the words associated with the tools since that will rapidly lead to watering down their meaning and effect. I'll stick with using the already watered-down words (like object and topic) when possible.
Ah, you seems to have actually beaten me to that revelation earlier in my post...and were more concise in writing it... *cites BAP in his mental notebook*
Ah, so fuzziness is that thing you get every time you see something new, and it won't go away until you just sit still and stare at the new idea for a few hours. Then you look away for a moment, confident you understood the idea pretty well. Once you look back, the fuzziness is there again. (Really, I don't think it ever left, we just get sleep deprived and think the fuzziness is the idea itself.)
I didn't have anything in mind but I'll bet there could be a barrier between any two perspectives anytime. Israel's perspective on the United States is not the same as Afghanistan's. Try translating that! Islam's perspective on God is probably pretty close to a Christian's but sometimes they will talk to each other and sometimes not. There is a thread going on this forum about being INTP versus INTJ. People have quite different perspectives in this. What is the barrier for agreement? Well lots: knowing cognitive functions. Knowing how to interpret oneself. Knowing how to interpret the other guy.
Sure. Anytime you come up with a concrete student example ... You could try out one here or anywhere and and state where you'd like to see common patterns. It wouldn't be necessary to start with a solution ... there should be INTPs around this forum to look ...
I agree, taking this approach would be much more difficult with a class, if not flat-out impractical. I switched to thinking of one-on-one benefits simply because I rarely have the opportunity of "teaching" a class.
Hmm...personal experience shaping the context I presumed...perhaps if common personal experiences can be identified, common characteristics of the commonly used hierarchies can be noted. Finding similarities is the first step in finding relationships. *writes in a mental notebook* *erases most of the "common" in the mental notebook but ignores them in the actual post*
Not a big deal.
@Words.
