Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Hitch is saying that reading those kinds of classics builds discipline of thought.
Katsunami is saying they require discipline of thought going in.
To me, it sounds like Hitch is from the "no-pain-no-gain lift heavy weight until you are strong" gym, while Kat is of the "play sports you love, ride your bike, go backpacking and eventually you'll be strong enough to lift heavy weights" gym.
I have no data on this, but it's interesting.
For myself: never read the denser classics when I was young, never had that kind of discipline, yet I did well enough on the SATs to join Mensa, and loved Logic and Language in college.
From my single data point, and my life experience I tend to side with Kat in general.
|
ApK:
Seriously, do we expect that our children will automatically take up the piano (cello, saxophone, insert instrument here) and diligently, sans any type of parental goading, learn to play it well? Not necessarily grand-master level, but well enough to perform Bach, or even Joplin? No, we don't. We assume that along the way, they'll decide they "don't wanna," that studying is too hard, that lessons are boring, and the like. Do we assume that Johnny is just going to be a baseball prodigy, without coaching at some level? That Janie will become a diva at ballet, first dancer, without work? No. Do we think that along the way, parents, teachers, et al, might have to overcome inherent childish disinclination, laziness, and the like? Yes, of course we do. The idea that these same kids will just leap into the classics, be born with the synaptic connections to delve into deeper thought, seems naive to me.
Yes, I was one of those that loved reading from the get-go; I was reading at an adult level before I was 10; and I read the classics on my own. So, inclination-wise, that would make me, personally, of Kat's "school" of thought, so to speak. But did I drag my feet on other areas of learning? Yes. I was an utter cow at math, particularly algebra, because I loathed that year's teacher.
Only discipline made me complete it properly. Forcing me to learn that particular topic (and what ensued in the following courses) allowed me to blast through my SAT's. And in later years, when my occupation (real estate development, building 5-star hotels) required that type of usage, not to mention developing complex spreadsheet usages, I was able to do it easily--using the same focus, etc., that I'd developed through both pursuits--the one I came to naturally and the one I hadn't.
So I was both types of student--the backpacker (math) and the no-pain-no-gainer. But nonetheless, kids will goof off if left to their own devices, and reading some of the heavier classics takes a discipline that gets better when used over time, and develops an ability to actually do that type of mental "heavy lifting" that becomes useful in the occupations that need that type of focus and concentration, like legal work, as merely one example.
You, ApK, may well have succeeded without the goad, but I think that assuming that most kids will is not a good idea. The top 1-2% of students will achieve--I did, you did, etc. But the other 98% won't, not without some type of "pain and gain," and we shouldn't allow them to fail just because the world's seemingly turned into some type of "happy happy joy joy" place where all kids get ribbons and medals just for showing up, parents are now their kids' friends and helicopters, rather than their parents, and that reading Dickens or St. Thomas Aquinas in high school is just "too hard." I simply disagree. (Cheerfully, mind you, but I disagree. We'll have to agree that we disagree!)
(Sorry for the hijacking. This thread is now returned to its normal programming.)
Hitch